Non-vital injuries do not preclude a Section 307 charge where intent is prima facie apparent.

On 26 November 2020, the appellant alleged that respondent No. 2 drove a tractor repeatedly towards him and his family in their agricultural field, striking the appellant’s mother, and that respondent No. 2 and others then assaulted the family with sharp-edged agricultural weapons. The appellant and his father sustained deep incised wounds

An FIR was registered under Sections 143, 307, 323, 341 and 447 IPC; after investigation, the Sessions Court framed charges against respondent No. 2, including under Section 307 IPC. On revision, the High Court set aside the Section 307 charge and directed that a charge under Section 308 IPC be framed, reasoning that the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. The appellant challenged that order before the Supreme Court

Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the charge under Section 307 IPC and directing a charge under Section 308 IPC because the victims’ injuries were on non-vital parts of the body

Under Section 307 IPC, the relevant inquiry is whether the accused acted with the intention or knowledge, and in circumstances, such that death would have made the act murder; a fatal or life-threatening injury need not actually be inflicted. The nature and location of an injury may assist in determining intention or knowledge but are not determinative; the court must consider the totality of circumstances, including the weapons used, the manner and persistence of the attack, and prior animosity (State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem alias Chamaru, (2005) 5 SCC 554; Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366)

At the charge-framing stage, Sections 227 and 228 CrPC require consideration of whether the material discloses a prima facie case or raises suspicion, not a mini-trial

Section 216 CrPC empowers the trial court to alter or add a charge before judgment

The investigation material included witness statements, spot-inspection reports and recoveries. It alleged that respondent No. 2 drove a tractor at high speed repeatedly towards the family, struck the appellant’s mother, and then joined an armed assault with axes or similar weapons. The appellant and his father sustained deep wounds, and the appellant’s statement was that blows aimed at their heads struck their arms or shoulders when they raised their arms to protect themselves

In the Court’s view, the High Court erred by treating the injuries’ location on limbs as decisive and conducting a summary assessment of their significance. The allegations and surrounding circumstances were sufficient at the charge stage to sustain the Section 307 charge; whether the evidence ultimately establishes that offence is for trial. If the evidence does not support that charge, the trial court may alter it under Section 216 CrPC

It allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the Sessions Court’s order framing, among other charges, a Section 307 IPC charge against respondent No. 2. The Court directed the trial to proceed in accordance with law and clarified that its observations should not affect the merits of the trial