Injuring Vital Body Part Without Intention Not Attempt To Murder: MP High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Accused Who Hit Neighbour's Head

The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a trial court order acquitting two men accused of 'attempt to murder' by hitting the heads of complainants with a wooden log, holding that merely inflicting injury on a vital body part without intention to kill does not attract IPC Section 307.

The bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed;

"There was no previous enmity between the appellants and the accused persons. The dispute suddenly occurred. The dispute was very petty in nature, therefore, there cannot be intention of murder behind hitting by hard and blunt object. The wooden log or Lathi are not the lethal weapons. Therefore, merely the injury was caused on the vital part but it was not caused with the intention to kill. The learned Trial Court has rightly discussed the injuries and the conviction under Section 325 of IPC in Para87 to 100 of the impugned judgment. Hence, we do not find any ground to admit this appeal for enhancement of charges and sentence".

Per the prosecution, the injured parties were the father and brother of the complainant. The brother, an auto driver, usually parked in front of the house. However, the neighbours (respondents no 2 and 3) had encroached upon the place. On November 30, 2018, at 8:30 pm, when the brother returned, he asked the neighbours to remove the said encroachment. The neighbours, however, came out with a wooden log and assaulted her father and brother.

An FIR was then registered under IPC for Attempt to murder (Section 307), Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323), Punishment for grievous hurt (Section 325), Obscene Acts and Songs (Section 294), Punishment for criminal intimidation (Section 506) and common intention (Section 34).

On December 27, 2018 the authorities filed a final report, and the Session Court framed charges for Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323), Punishment for grievous hurt (Section 325) and passed a conviction order.

The trial court however acquitted the accused under Section 307 of IPC.

Aggrieved, the injured parties approached the High Court seeking enhancement of charges. It was claimed that the neighbours assaulted with the intention to kill as they hit the head of the father and the brother with a wooden log, which was a vital part of the body. Therefore, the accused should be held liable under Section 307 and not Section 325 IPC.

Examining the medical reports of the injured party, the court noted that no active surgery was done and that there was a small parietal contusion, a left temporal small contusion and a fracture in the mastoid bone.

The doctor, in his testimony, stated that the head injury sustained by the father was simple in nature, the court noted. The court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Himanshu Sarwan v State of MP (CRA-5705-2025)

For Appellant: Advocate Jagriti Thackar

For State: Government Advocate Surendra Kumar Gupta

For Respondents 2 and 3: Advocate Yashpal Singh Sisodiya

Click here to read/download Order