Attempt to murder
Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
(2) When any person offending under sub-section (1) is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life.
Illustrations.
(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.
(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.
(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and, if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of sub-section (1).
(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servants to place it on Z's table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Section 109, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 307 Attempt to murder Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 3 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attempt to murder. | Imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| If such act causes hurt to any person. | Imprisonment for life, or as above. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Attempt by life-convict to murder, if hurt is caused. | Death, or imprisonment for life which shall mean the remainder of that person's natural life. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-14.pdf 2019-02-04 (not same-date order-15 ROP). CJI/Hemant Gupta, Crl A 1589/2018. For IPC 307, it is not necessary that the injury be grievous or fatal; intention or knowledge to cause death may be inferred from the weapon, the part of the body aimed at, and the circumstances (here a firearm causing punctured wounds). High Court acquittal reversed. Map IPC 307 and successor BNS 109.
On this section: Successor of IPC 307 (mapping.csv near-identical). Attempt-to-murder teaching carries to BNS 109.
-
Jaleshwar Singh vs State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the evidence shows that the accused gave exhortation to commit an act with weapons that is likely to cause death, but does not explicitly exhort to cause death, the appropriate conviction is under Section 307 read with Section 110 IPC (abetment of attempt to cause death) rather than Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC (abetment of murder). The distinction between exhortation to kill and exhortation to cause grievous injury using deadly weapons is significant in determining the charge and sentence. Where the exact words of exhortation are ambiguous or disputed in evidence, and where words allegedly added later create doubt about specific intent to kill, the court should lean towards the more conservative interpretation that reflects the abetment of an act likely to cause death rather than direct abetment of murder. A custodial sentence of 7 years is appropriate for such modified conviction.
On this section: Attempt to cause death or knowledge that act is likely to cause death - modified conviction applied to Jaleshwar Singh for abetting act likely to cause death
-
Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate, and reconsider evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded. While a double presumption of innocence exists in favor of an acquitted person, the paramount consideration is substantial justice and avoiding miscarriage of justice from acquitting the guilty. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence, acquittal should not be disturbed. However, when the approach of the trial court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence and deduction of conclusions, the appellate court must interfere. Ocular (eyewitness) evidence has greater evidentiary value than medical evidence unless the contradiction is so extreme that medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true. The non-examination of a kidnapped and intimidated witness cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. Evidence of eyewitnesses, though interested parties, is trustworthy when reliable and internally consistent. Minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony spanning long examination periods are immaterial when the core narrative remains consistent and corroborated.
On this section: Attempt to murder - applied for conviction related to the injury caused to Ganga Singh, the injured witness
-
Rohtas vs The State of Haryana Home Department Home Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged under Sections 148 and 149 IPC as part of an unlawful assembly, but some members of the assembly are acquitted during trial such that the number falls below five, the conviction under Sections 148 and 149 cannot be sustained. However, the accused can be individually convicted under Section 307 IPC (or other applicable provisions) if the evidence establishes that his individual act caused the injury or death, provided that: (1) the facts to be proved and evidence to be adduced would be substantially the same as under the group charge; (2) the accused was expressly confronted with his specific role in the offence; and (3) no prejudice is caused to the accused by the charge alteration. Additionally, the credibility of eyewitness testimony from closely related family members (such as the victim's brother) can be relied upon in violent crime cases if the testimony is consistent, detailed, corroborated by medical evidence, and the gravity of injuries makes false implication inconceivable.
On this section: Attempt to murder. Court upheld conviction under this section, holding that the weapons used, injuries inflicted, and death threats made by the appellants clearly established the intention to cause death.
-
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the application of Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to explicitly invoke Section 141 IPC in the charge sheet. What is essential is that the ingredients of unlawful assembly as defined in Section 141 IPC must be proven. An unlawful assembly requires: (i) an assembly of at least five persons, and (ii) a common object to commit an offence or achieve any of the objects enumerated in Section 141. The common object is to be gathered from the circumstances of each case such as time, place, and conduct of the gathering. Once the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object is proven, all members of that assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for offences committed in prosecution of that common object, regardless of whether each member inflicted a specific injury or even any injury at all. Mere presence in the unlawful assembly with knowledge of the common object is sufficient for vicarious liability.
On this section: Provides punishment for attempt to murder. Appellants were convicted under this section and sentenced to 7 years RI with fine of Rs. 500 each.
-
State of H. P vs Nirmala Devi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment with imprisonment 'and shall also be liable to fine' for serious offences, both imprisonment and fine are mandatory and imperative. The appellate court's power under Section 386(b)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code to alter the nature or extent of sentence must be exercised in accordance with the statutory scheme of punishment in the IPC and cannot be used to eliminate imprisonment entirely and substitute it with fine alone, even when mitigating circumstances such as the accused being a woman with dependent children are present. For heinous crimes against society, the deterrence theory becomes paramount, and the principle of proportionality requires that punishment be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
On this section: Attempt to murder - provides for imprisonment of either description for a term extending to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Court held that both imprisonment and fine are mandatory.
-
Sheikh Juman Etc vs State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Members of an unlawful assembly share criminal liability for deaths caused by other members in furtherance of the common object of the assembly, even if they did not directly perpetrate the killing, provided they actively participated in the crime through facilitating acts such as preventing rescue efforts or demonstrating force with weapons, and this liability can be established through reliable eye-witness testimony corroborated by circumstantial evidence, and mere presence at the scene with knowledge of the common object is sufficient when combined with active facilitation.
On this section: Attempt to murder - Case filed two years before the incident, establishing motive for the present attack
-
Krishna @ Bala Krishnan vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence establishes that members of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons came together with the common object of committing murder, attacked family members with deadly weapons and with common intent as evidenced by slogans and coordinated attack in quick succession, all members of such unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for all murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even if not all members physically perpetrated each murder. The High Court's modification of conviction from Section 34 to Section 149 is justified where the facts establish common object rather than merely common intention. While multiple life sentences can be awarded for multiple murders, they cannot be directed to run consecutively, but term sentences may precede and commence before life sentences in accordance with Section 31 CrPC.
On this section: Attempt to murder. Applied to convict some accused for attempted murder of persons who survived the attack with grievous injuries.
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly and mass murder, where eyewitnesses testify to the presence of multiple armed persons acting in concert with a common object to commit murder, and where the accused are heard shouting slogans indicating intent to kill, the conviction can be upheld under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC even if the charge was originally framed under Section 34 IPC, provided the evidence establishes the common object of the assembly and the participation of the accused in the unlawful assembly. The vicarious liability of all members of the unlawful assembly for acts committed in prosecution of the common object is established when eyewitness testimony is credible and corroborated by other evidence such as recovered weapons and the nature of the attack.
On this section: Attempt to commit murder; applied to convict accused for attempting to murder witnesses
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unlawful assembly of five or more armed persons with a common object attacks and kills multiple persons in a coordinated manner demonstrating shared purpose through actions like shouting incitements to kill, the members of such assembly are all vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even without proof of a pre-arranged plan required for Section 34. The conviction does not become fatal merely because originally charged under Section 34 if the evidence establishes the elements of Section 149 and no prejudice is shown.
On this section: Attempt to commit murder; applied to persons who attempted to kill others during the attack but victims survived
-
Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials involving circumstantial evidence and conspiracy, eyewitness identification without test identification parade is admissible and can support conviction if the witness is trustworthy and reliable, provided such identification is corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence including extra-judicial confessions, recovered weapons, telephonic communications and documents. However, mere telephonic communications without proof of exclusive control or personal involvement in conspiatorial acts are insufficient to establish guilt when the communications are explainable by familial or legitimate relationships. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through competent and corroborating evidence.
On this section: Applied to establish attempt to cause death by dangerous weapons used in assault on PW-15 Sukhwinder Singh with injuries corroborated by medical evidence
-
Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a witness is trustworthy and reliable and has opportunity to observe and recall the incident, the absence of a test identification parade does not render their in-court identification inadmissible or unsafe if it is supported by credible corroborating material evidence such as medical evidence, other eyewitness accounts, recoveries of items connected to the crime, and incriminating statements. Conviction under Sections 364, 302, and 307 read with Section 120B IPC can be sustained on the basis of such circumstantial evidence if the circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. However, conviction must not be based on mere suspicion or telephone communications alone without concrete corroborating evidence, as the standard of proof requires evidence to be sufficient and convincing.
On this section: Applied for attempt to commit murder of Sukhwinder Singh, who was attacked with sharp weapons and left in injured condition. Injuries were serious and sufficient to cause death.
-
Shiv Kesh Giri @ Lalla vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 307, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitnesses, when confessions to police lead to discovery of incriminating materials (weapons, cartridges, stolen items) through Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and when multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence form a complete and unbroken chain of events establishing motive, opportunity, and participation in the crime, the conviction of the accused can be sustained. The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, procedure, or misreading of evidence resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. Minor discrepancies and gaps in eyewitness testimony do not vitiate an otherwise strong and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence when the totality points conclusively to guilt.
On this section: Attempt to commit murder - cited as evidence of prior criminal association between Devesh Agnihotri and Rakesh Anand in 1998
-
Santosh Singh Uttam Bisen vs Govt Nashik Taluka Police Station, Nashik)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the weapon of offence is already recovered from the spot and the remaining allegations are largely oral in nature arising from a property dispute, custodial interrogation may be dispensed with for certain accused, unless specific heinous acts (like outraging modesty or specific flag desecration) are attributed to an individual.
On this section: Substantive offences including attempt to murder, assault, and outraging modesty.
-
Yash Mahadeo Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra through Malegaon Police Station C R No 71 of 2026
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious violent crimes with allegations of conspiracy to commit murder (contract killing), where the investigation is ongoing, medical evidence shows grievous injury on vital parts of the body, witnesses have identified the accused, criminal antecedents exist, and there is demonstrable risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering, bail should be refused even if the accused have undergone substantial custody period, as the nature and gravity of the offence and investigative requirements outweigh the right to bail at the investigation stage.
On this section: Relates to criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argued this section applies to the alleged contract killing conspiracy. The defence contended that the sudden nature of assault means conspiracy cannot be inferred.
-
KETANKUMAR RAMABHAI PATEL vs GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the investigation is complete, a charge sheet is filed, and the accused has no criminal antecedents, the court should lean towards granting bail unless there is a significant flight risk or threat to witnesses.
On this section: Substantive offences including Attempt to Murder and Voluntary Causing Hurt.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 109
What have the courts held on Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha (04 Feb 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 307, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 307 (mapping.csv near-identical). Attempt-to-murder teaching carries to BNS 109. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2026.
Is Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Court of Session.
How do I find court cases under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 109, section 109 BNS, section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 109(1) in hindi and bns 109 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha (04 Feb 2019).
What should I read with Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 307 (Attempt to murder), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 109, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.