Attempt to murder
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.
Attempts by life-convicts.
Attempts by life-convicts.-[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]
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 [the first paragraph of] this section.
(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 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 307, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 109 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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 5
- Crpc 1973 s. 439 Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoner (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, English Version s. 2
- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners’ Temporary Release Act, 2022 (Haryana No. 15 of 2022) s. 2
- Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act s. 3 Prevention and eradication of inhuman evil practices and black magic
- Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act s. 30
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
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: s.307 does not require a grievous or fatal injury; intention or knowledge to cause death is inferred from the weapon, aim and circumstances.
-
Rohtas vs The State of Haryana Home Department Home Secretary
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.
-
Hazara Singh vs Raj Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In determining appropriate sentence for offences under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), courts must apply the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment. Trial pendency and potential social enmity between parties cannot be valid grounds for reducing sentences, as such considerations would undermine the deterrent effect of criminal law, undermine public confidence in the justice system, and ignore society's collective cry for justice. The nature, gravity, and manner of commission of the offence, including the nature of weapons used, injuries inflicted, and factual circumstances, must be paramount considerations. High Court's appellate power to alter sentences must be exercised based on sound judicial principles and cannot be used to impose meager sentences based on irrelevant or untenable grounds.
On this section: Attempt to murder - provides for imprisonment up to 10 years or life imprisonment. Court emphasized that while no minimum sentence is expressly stated, courts must exercise sentencing discretion with utmost care based on proportionality principle. Confirmed conviction under this section.
-
Shaukat vs State of Uttaranchal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple evidentiary factors establish premeditation (prior threat, weapon-carrying, deliberate follow-up to confrontation site, specific instruction to kill, and immediate compliance), combined with the infliction of injuries on vital organs with sufficient force to cause immediate death, the act constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC and cannot be reduced to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-I IPC merely because the quarrel occurred at the spot. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight without premeditation) does not apply when the temporal and contextual evidence reveals deliberate planning and execution. Similarly, when an appellant inflicts multiple grievous injuries (including bone-deep wounds with fractures) on a person attempting to prevent harm to a victim, this constitutes attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC rather than mere attempt to cause hurt under Section 308 IPC.
On this section: The Court upheld this conviction for the attack on injured Rahmat, finding that the infliction of six injuries including two grievous injuries (fractured ribs, torn pleura) demonstrated intent to commit murder, not merely cause hurt. The Court rejected the High Court's finding that these injuries were inflicted only to effect escape.
-
Satyavir Singh vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While a High Court possesses wide power to review evidence in appeals against acquittal and can interfere with the acquittal if it is perverse or wholly unsustainable in law, such interference should only be exercised when the acquittal is founded on surmises, conjectures, and unfounded assumptions unsupported by evidence on record, rather than on genuine doubts arising from the evidence itself. Where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from evidence, the appellate court should favour the accused. However, if the acquittal judgment proceeds on assumptions of facts not supported on record or adopts an approach contrary to the views a person of common prudence would take when direct evidence has been produced, the appellate court may justify interference. The principles of judicial caution do not permit an appellate court to refuse interference where guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt by credible eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and partly admitted facts, merely because a lower appellate court granted acquittal. The determination of intent for Section 307 IPC depends on the knowledge that the act may cause death, not on whether vital organs were targeted or death actually resulted.
On this section: Attempt to murder - The Supreme Court applied this section to determine that firing two bullets at the victim with knowledge that such act may cause death constitutes attempt to murder, regardless of whether vital organs were targeted or whether victim ultimately survived
-
Gulab Das vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While offences punishable under Section 307 IPC (attempt to cause death) are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code and cannot be compounded even with settlement between parties, the settlement/compromise between the parties can be taken into consideration by the Court as a mitigating factor when determining the quantum of sentence to be imposed. In cases where parties have reconciled, especially in old matters involving family relationships where the accused were young at the time of incident and have already served substantial portions of their sentences, the Court may reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, thereby giving effect to the settlement while maintaining the conviction.
On this section: Attempt to cause death - substantive offence for which appellants were convicted; established as non-compoundable offence
-
Jaleshwar Singh vs State of Bihar
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
-
Gopal vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the nature and extent of injuries caused in a group assault, along with the manner and circumstances of the attack, do not establish an intent to cause death or knowledge that death would result, the conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) should be reduced to Section 326 IPC (causing grievous hurt), notwithstanding the common object of the unlawful assembly. Appellate courts have the jurisdiction and duty to reassess evidence and alter convictions where the proof falls short of the gravity of the charge, distinguishing between individual culpability within group criminal actions.
On this section: Attempt to commit murder - charge from which three appellants were acquitted or conviction reduced
-
Vasant Vithu Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In matters of criminal appeal challenging sentences imposed under Section 307 IPC for attempted murder, appellate courts possess the discretion to review and modify sentences that are found to be excessive or disproportionate, while the underlying conviction may be upheld if the evidence of guilt is sound. The sentence imposed for attempted murder must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case.
On this section: Attempted murder provision; sentencing and appellate review of sentence imposed under this section
-
Ram Naresh vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal appeals challenging conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC where the ocular evidence of closely related witnesses is consistent with the medical evidence of injury despite some discrepancies over time, and where the delay in filing FIR is reasonable given the circumstances of a rural setting, the conviction shall be upheld. However, where significant passage of time has occurred between the commission of the crime and the final judgment, courts may exercise discretionary judicial authority to reduce the sentence as an act of mercy, even while affirming the conviction.
On this section: Charge of attempt to murder - the appellant was convicted under this section for attempting to kill Shiv Vilas. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence sufficiently proved the appellant fired at the victim with intent to kill.
-
Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Although Section 307 IPC offences are non-compoundable and conviction cannot be withdrawn even if parties reconcile, the court possesses discretion to reduce the substantive sentence based on mitigating circumstances such as the appellants' lack of criminal background, passage of significant time (20 years), genuine reconciliation between parties, and the fact that the appellants have already undergone substantial imprisonment (more than 2.5 years). In matters involving simple agriculturists with no criminal propensity, where relations have become cordial and they have served substantial time, the ends of justice are served by reducing the sentence to time already undergone rather than rigidly adhering to the original sentence.
On this section: Attempt to cause death by attacking victims with sword and sticks. Court found this charge proven beyond reasonable doubt based on medical evidence showing injuries sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
-
Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of U. P.
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
-
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary
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 Rajasthan vs Dharam Raj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal only when the judgment suffers from patent perversity, is based on misreading or omission to consider material evidence, or when no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with guilt beyond reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence on record. In the present case, the trial court's acquittal was a possible view based on the evidence, and therefore the appellate court cannot reverse it merely because another view was also possible.
On this section: Attempt to commit murder; initially charged but not pursued
-
Deepak Bansal vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes, while possessing procedural powers of a civil court for the limited purpose of conducting investigation and inquiry into complaints relating to deprivation of rights and safeguards of scheduled castes, does not have the power to issue binding directions in the nature of interim or mandatory injunctions, nor can it direct police to reinvestigate criminal matters, add specific sections to FIRs, or order arrest of accused persons. The powers of the National Commission are purely recommendatory in nature, and any directions issued by it must be understood as recommendations to the State Government or appropriate authorities, not as binding orders capable of execution or enforcement. The National Commission cannot interfere with ongoing police investigations or assume substantive powers of adjudication that are not explicitly vested in it by the Constitution or statute.
On this section: Various sections cited in the FIR and complaint. Court examined whether NCSC can direct addition of these sections, holding it cannot do so as this is investigative discretion of police.
-
Ganesh Reddy vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused person has a right to speedy trial and cannot be incarcerated indefinitely as an under-trial prisoner; where trial progress is extremely slow and the period of incarceration exceeds four years, the accused is entitled to bail.
On this section: Attempt to murder.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… While A-5 was acquitted, conviction of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and the sentence imposed upon them were maintained by the High Court. The Trial Court convicted A-4 under sections 148, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code[7]( page-1-2) and section 27 of the Arms Act, while A-1, A-2 and A-3 as well as A-5 were convicted under sections 148, 302, 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC. All the accused were sentenced to life in prison. 2. The appeal was heard in the presence of learned advocates for the parties …
-
… The appellant before this Court has challenged the order of the High Court (dated 18.05.2011) which has dismissed his appeal while upholding his conviction and sentence by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, for which he has been sentenced for life imprisonment and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment respectively. - 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the State at length. Signature Not Verified The prosecution case is that …
Questions about Section 307
What have the courts held on Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code?
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha (04 Feb 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.307 does not require a grievous or fatal injury; intention or knowledge to cause death is inferred from the weapon, aim and circumstances. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 307, section 307 IPC, section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 307 in bns and ipc 307 punishment. 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 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 109 (Attempt to murder), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 307, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.