Himanshu Sarwan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025

The complainant’s father and brother were assaulted by neighbors after a dispute over encroachment of parking space.

The brother, an auto driver, had asked the neighbors to remove encroachment; the neighbors allegedly attacked the father and brother with a wooden log.

FIR was registered under multiple IPC sections including attempt to murder (Section 307).

The trial court acquitted the accused under Section 307 but convicted them under Sections 323 and 325.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court’s order acquitting the accused of attempt to murder.

The Court noted the dispute was sudden and petty, without prior enmity.

It held that wooden logs or lathis are not lethal weapons per se.

Injuries on vital parts (head) do not automatically imply intention to kill unless established otherwise.

Medical evidence showed only simple head injuries (small contusions and a fracture) with no major surgical intervention required.

Hence, the Court found no ground to enhance charges from grievous hurt to attempt to murder.

The judgment clarifies the fine distinction between causing grievous injury and attempt to murder.

The Court emphasized the importance of establishing “intention to kill” for Section 307, which was missing.

Mere injury to vital body parts is not conclusive without intent.

The use of a non-lethal weapon and the sudden nature of the dispute weighed against the prosecution.

This ruling aligns with principles that criminal liability under Section 307 requires specific mens rea (intention).

It underscores the need for careful evaluation of medical evidence and circumstances before charging serious offences.