Attempt to Murder under BNS §109(1): Injury Severity Not Determinative at the Charge-Framing Stage; “Grave Suspicion” Test under BNSS §250 Reaffirmed

Introduction

In Vivek @ Vicky v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 MPHC-IND 32712), decided on 11 November 2025 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) per Justice Gajendra Singh, the Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the framing of charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) for attempt to murder and a related count. The petitioner sought to set aside “Head No. 2 and 4” of the charges—especially the attempt to murder charge under BNS §109(1)—arguing that medical opinion showed the victim’s injuries were neither deep nor dangerous to life and were not on vital parts.

The judgment is significant for two reasons:

• It reaffirms that at the charge-framing stage under BNSS §250 (formerly CrPC §227), courts apply the “grave suspicion” test and must not conduct a mini-trial.
• It confirms the continuity of settled IPC §307 principles in interpreting BNS §109(1) (attempt to murder), emphasizing that the presence or severity of injury is not a sine qua non; intent/knowledge and the act done towards commission are decisive.

Background and Key Facts

• Crime No. 232/2025 was registered at Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain, for an incident at about 1:45 a.m. on 22 May 2025 near Shiv Mandir, Nagda.
• The victim, Rahul, sustained knife injuries. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, Vivek @ Vicky, threatened to kill Rahul and attempted to strike at his neck; Rahul intercepted with his left arm, sustaining incised wounds.
• The trial court framed charges under BNS §§296, 109(1), 115(2), and 315(3) (as recorded), and the petitioner assailed only Head Nos. 2 and 4.
• The petitioner relied on a medical opinion dated 11 June 2025 (Annexure P/1) from Indubhai Parekh Memorial Hospital, Birlagram, Nagda, stating the wounds were not on vital parts and were not dangerous to life, arguing that BNS §109(1) (attempt to murder) was inapplicable.
• The medico-legal case (MLC), however, recorded continuous bleeding with a possibility of deep vessel injury; and P/1 itself recorded a second incised wound with muscle and fat tears and “open cut veins and muscular arteries” sized approximately 10×3×3 cm, suggesting serious bleeding risk.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision, upholding the trial court’s decision to frame charges under Head Nos. 2 and 4, including BNS §109(1) (attempt to murder). Relying on the established framework for discharge/charge-framing:

• The Court reiterated that at the stage of framing charge/discharge (BNSS §250; earlier CrPC §227), courts evaluate whether there is sufficient ground to proceed and whether materials disclose “grave suspicion,” without embarking on a mini-trial.
• Translating the jurisprudence of IPC §307 to BNS §109(1), the Court emphasized that injury is not a necessary condition for attempt to murder; the crucial elements are the assailant’s intention/knowledge and any overt act towards the commission of the offence.
• On the facts, an alleged knife attack targeted at the victim’s neck—a vital part—intercepted by the victim’s arm, coupled with deep incised wounds and significant bleeding risk, raised “grave suspicion” sufficient to justify the charges.
• The medical note that the victim remained admitted despite advice of discharge was held irrelevant at this stage.

Result: The revision was found meritless and was dismissed. The charges (including Head Nos. 2 and 4) remain to be tried.

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• P. Vijayan v. State Of Kerala (2010) 2 SCC 398:
  • Reaffirmed the scope of discharge under CrPC §227, now mirrored in BNSS §250: the judge must apply a judicial mind to the material to see if there is “sufficient ground” to proceed; if only suspicion as opposed to “grave suspicion” arises, discharge may follow.
  • At this stage, courts should not weigh the evidence as at trial; they may “sift” material to test whether the offence’s ingredients, prima facie, appear.
  • Influence: The Court drew directly from this to apply the grave suspicion threshold and the limited sifting permitted at the charge stage.
• Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368:
  • Laid down guiding principles for framing charges, emphasizing:
    • Existence of “grave suspicion” justifies framing of charge.
    • Probative value is not to be assessed; courts should not conduct a roving enquiry.
    • If material suggests commission of offence is possible, charge can be framed; conviction needs proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is a trial-stage requirement.
  • Influence: Provided a structured checklist that the High Court applied when evaluating the petitioner’s reliance on medical opinion.
• State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 314:
  • Reasserted that a “mini trial” is impermissible at the charge/discharge stage.
  • Influence: Countered the petitioner’s attempt to rely on medical nuance to neutralize intent at the threshold stage.
• CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379:
  • Again stressed the narrow ambit of discharge/quashing: the court examines if sufficient material exists to proceed, not to decide merits.
  • Influence: Reinforced the Court’s refusal to treat the discharge/charge-framing stage as a forum to conclusively test medical opinion or defenses.

2) Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds in two layers: procedural and substantive.

Procedural layer (BNSS §250 / earlier CrPC §227):

• The “sufficient ground” inquiry is limited to whether the materials, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences.
• The judge may sift, but not weigh, evidence; a mini-trial is forbidden. Where materials disclose “grave suspicion,” charges must be framed.

Substantive layer (BNS §109(1), mapped from IPC §307 principles):

• The Court quoted IPC §307 and set out its core elements, applying them to BNS §109(1):
  • Intention or knowledge that, if death were caused by the act, the assailant would be guilty of murder; and
  • An act done towards the commission of that offence.
• Decisively, the Court underscored:
  • Presence, severity, or location of injury is not determinative for attempt to murder; injury is not a sine qua non.
  • Intent and the nature of the act—especially when aimed at a vital part—carry substantial weight.
• Applied to the facts:
  • Alleged threat “to kill,” coupled with a knife strike directed at the neck (a vital part), supports an inference of intent and knowledge consistent with an attempted murder charge.
  • The interception by the victim’s arm leading to deep incised wounds with significant bleeding risk does not diminish the import of the targeted act; rather, it confirms an overt act towards the commission of the offence.
  • Even the defense’s own medical document (P/1) notes “open cut veins and muscular arteries” with excessive bleeding, which supports the prosecution’s narrative of a dangerous attack.

On the ancillary count (Head No. 4: BNS §315(3)/§351(3) as variously recorded):

• Although the judgment does not parse the distinct ingredients of Head No. 4, it preserves the charge, implicitly finding adequate prima facie material as part of the same transaction involving a knife and incised wounds.
• The Court indicates that administrative or treatment details (e.g., whether the victim stayed in hospital longer than advised) are immaterial at this stage.

3) Impact and Prospective Significance

The decision has several important implications for practice under the new codes (BNS/BNSS):

• Continuity of substantive law: The Court transparently applies established IPC §307 jurisprudence to BNS §109(1), providing much-needed certainty in the early life of the BNS that courts will look to settled principles under the IPC for interpretive guidance where provisions are cognate.
• Charge-framing discipline under BNSS §250: The judgment reiterates the “grave suspicion” test and cautions against mini-trials. Defense strategies relying on medical characterizations of non-fatal or non-vital injuries are unlikely to succeed at the threshold where the prosecution narrative and materials show targeted lethal intent coupled with an overt act.
• Investigative emphasis: Police and prosecutors should meticulously record:
  • Targeted body part(s) and trajectory of the blow;
  • Weapon type and manner of use;
  • Contemporaneous medical findings (e.g., significant bleeding, possibility of vessel injury) and their immediacy to the incident.
  Such details will be central to establishing “grave suspicion” of attempt to murder even if the eventual injury is not fatal or on a vital part due to victim’s defensive action.
• Defense considerations: Medical opinions downplaying lethality will rarely warrant discharge if the prosecution’s version discloses an overt, targeted act evidencing lethal intent. Challenges on such grounds are better reserved for trial.
• Doctrinal clarity: The case consolidates that the absence of “dangerous to life” injury does not immunize an accused from BNS §109(1) charge; intent and the directed act remain pivotal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• BNSS vs. BNS:
  • BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is procedural law (successor to the CrPC). BNSS §250 corresponds to CrPC §227 (discharge/charge-framing standard).
  • BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) is substantive criminal law (successor to the IPC). BNS §109(1) is the new-code provision corresponding to attempt to murder (IPC §307).
• “Grave suspicion” vs. “suspicion”:
  • At the charge stage, the court asks: Do the materials, taken at face value, raise a strong (grave) suspicion that the accused has committed the offence?
  • If yes, the case should go to trial. If they only raise a tenuous or mere suspicion, discharge may be appropriate.
• No “mini-trial” at charge stage:
  • The court does not evaluate competing versions or weigh credibility as at trial. It does a threshold assessment for sufficiency to proceed.
• Attempt to murder (BNS §109(1) / IPC §307):
  • Two key elements: (a) intention or knowledge such that if death resulted, the act would amount to murder; and (b) an act done towards that end.
  • Injury is not a necessary precondition. Aimed strikes at vital parts with deadly weapons can constitute attempt to murder even if the injury actually inflicted is non-fatal or is intercepted onto a non-vital part.
• Medical opinion at charge stage:
  • Doctors’ views on “dangerous to life” are not conclusive at the threshold. The court looks at the totality: weapon used, targeted area, manner of assault, immediate medical findings (e.g., heavy bleeding or vessel injury risk), and statements of witnesses/victim.

Textual and Record Anomalies Noted

• The order’s opening refers to a “Criminal Revision under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023,” but the analysis squarely engages BNSS §250 (CrPC §227 equivalent) on framing/discharge. This appears to be a clerical mis-citation; the operative standard applied is §250 BNSS.
• There is inconsistency in the numbering of the fourth charge (recorded as BNS §351(3) in one place and §315(3) elsewhere). The Court nonetheless upholds Head No. 4 along with §109(1), and the reasoning rests principally on the sufficiency of materials regarding the knife attack and targeted intent.
• Substantive provisions are of the BNS (not BNSS); where “BNSS” is used to describe substantive offences, it should be read as “BNS.”

Practical Takeaways

• For prosecutors:
  • Document specific intent indicators (threats, target area like neck/chest, weapon type, repeated blows) and immediate medical flags (heavy bleeding, vessel injury risk). These are pivotal at the charge stage under §109(1) BNS.
  • Do not rely solely on final opinions of “not dangerous to life”; highlight contemporaneous MLC observations and circumstances of attack.
• For defense:
  • Challenges premised on the non-fatal, non-vital nature of injuries are unlikely to result in discharge where the prosecution shows a targeted lethal strike thwarted by defensive action.
  • Reserve medical and intent-contesting arguments for trial, where cross-examination and full evidentiary weighing occur.
• For trial courts:
  • Apply BNSS §250’s “grave suspicion” filter; avoid mini-trials. If materials, taken at face value, indicate a targeted, potentially lethal attack, §109(1) BNS charges are ordinarily sustainable.

Conclusion

This decision provides clarity on two intersecting dimensions of the new criminal law architecture. Procedurally, it reiterates that the charge-framing inquiry under BNSS §250 is a threshold exercise centered on “grave suspicion,” eschewing any mini-trial. Substantively, it confirms that the mature jurisprudence of IPC §307 seamlessly informs BNS §109(1): attempt to murder does not hinge on the presence or severity of injury, but on intent/knowledge and an overt act toward the offence—particularly salient where the assailant aims at a vital part with a deadly weapon and injury is averted or deflected by a defensive maneuver.

In upholding charges against the petitioner, including BNS §109(1), the Madhya Pradesh High Court ensures continuity and coherence in the transition from IPC/CrPC to BNS/BNSS, and sends a clear message for future prosecutions: targeted lethal intent corroborated by surrounding circumstances will ordinarily suffice to carry an attempt to murder charge to trial, notwithstanding post hoc medical opinions that injuries were not “dangerous to life.”

Case Snapshot

• Case: Vivek @ Vicky v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
• Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench
• Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice Gajendra Singh
• Decision Date: 11 November 2025 (Heard on 29 October 2025)
• Neutral Citation: 2025 MPHC-IND 32712
• Key Holdings:
  • At charge-framing under BNSS §250, apply “grave suspicion”; no mini-trial.
  • BNS §109(1) (attempt to murder): injury not a sine qua non; intent and overt act are determinative.
  • Knife assault targeting the neck, intercepted by the victim’s arm with serious incised wounds, suffices to sustain charges.
• Outcome: Criminal revision dismissed; charges under Head Nos. 2 and 4 stand.