Injury on Non-Vital Part No Ground to Drop Section 307 IPC Charge at Framing Stage: Supreme Court

On 26.11.2020, in Nagaur district, respondent No. 2 allegedly drove a tractor at high speed at the appellant and his family in their field, striking his mother, after which he and other accused attacked them with axes. The appellant and his father suffered bone-deep incised wounds on the arm and wrist (paras 3.1-3.2). The Additional Sessions Judge, Merta framed a charge under Section 307 IPC against respondent No. 2 on 28.11.2023 (para 3.4). On 01.04.2025 the High Court, in revision, held that the injuries were on non-vital parts and directed a charge under Section 308 instead (paras 2, 3.5). The State supported the appeal (para 5).

Section 307 asks whether the act, whatever its result, was done with such intention or knowledge that causing death would have been murder (para 8). Following Balram Bama Patil, Saleem and Jage Ram, a fatal injury need not be caused; intention is inferred from the weapons, the persistence of the assault, prior enmity and the manner of attack, and the site of the wound only assists (para 8). Surender Kumar reiterated that an injury on a non-vital part does not by itself exclude Section 307 (para 9). At the stage of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC the court does not hold a mini-trial but asks whether the material discloses a prima facie case (para 10). Here the material showed a tractor driven repeatedly at the family, an armed axe assault, deep incised wounds, and the appellant's statement that blows aimed at their heads struck their arms as they shielded themselves (para 11). The High Court erred in a summary, technical assessment of the injuries and overlooked that Section 216 CrPC lets the trial court alter the charge later (para 12).