Absence of a Life-Threatening Medical Opinion Precludes a Charge Under Section 109 of the BNS: Punjab & Haryana HC

In a significant ruling on the threshold for framing charges of attempted murder, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has affirmed that mere allegations of a 'deadly attack' and verbal exhortations are insufficient to attract Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 without corroborating medical evidence indicating injuries dangerous to life.

A Single Judge bench of Justice Manisha Batra upheld an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, which had declined to frame charges for attempt to murder and relegated the case to a Magistrate. The Court emphasized that while the judiciary possesses the power to sift evidence at the charge-framing stage, it must find 'grave suspicion' rather than mere suspicion to proceed with more serious offences.

Judicial Scrutiny at the Stage of Framing Charges

The Court observed that the trial court is not a mere 'mouthpiece of the prosecution' and must apply its judicial mind to the material on record. Referring to the principles established in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samel ( "(1979) 3 SCC 4": 1978 CaseBase(SC) 17) and Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI ( "(2010) 9 SCC 368": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 383), the Court noted that the judge must consider the broad probabilities and total effect of the evidence for the limited purpose of finding a prima facie case.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The word prima facie when used in terms of prima facie view as far as consideration on the point of framing charge is concerned, would certainly means there being enough material for substance which would give rise to strong suspicion against the accused and holding of a view in favour of the prosecution... mere allegations in the FIR or use of expressions such as 'deadly attack' or exhortations to eliminate the complainant cannot by themselves constitute sufficient ground to frame charge for an offence of attempt to culpable homicide/murder unless the essential ingredients constituting such offence are prima facie borne out from the attendant circumstances, nature of injuries, seat of injuries, medical evidence and the manner of occurrence."

The Requirement of Medical Corroboration

Court Directions:

The Court has the following directions:
"This Court does not find that the said conclusion suffers from any patent illegality, perversity or misreading of evidence warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Rather, the impugned order reflects a proper and judicious exercise undertaken by the Court concerned within the limited scope permissible at the stage of consideration of charge. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present revision petition is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh is hereby affirmed."

Background:

The case originated from an FIR registered at Police Station Maloya, Chandigarh, involving an incident where the complainant was allegedly attacked by several persons armed with a rod, danda, and knife. According to the prosecution, the accused persons surrounded the complainant and inflicted multiple injuries while shouting that he should be eliminated. Following the investigation under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (and its predecessor Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the police invoked Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which led to the case being committed to the Court of Sessions.

However, the Medico-Legal Report (MLR) indicated five injuries, out of which only two (fractures on the legs) were declared grievous. The remaining injuries, including one on the head, were declared simple. The Additional Sessions Judge found that no medical opinion suggested the injuries were 'dangerous to life.' Relying on P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala ( "(2010) 2 SCC 398": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 1462) and Shashikant Sharma and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ( "2024(1) RCR (Criminal) 67": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 201), the High Court reiterated that if the necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out from the admitted evidence of the prosecution, the Court is not obliged to frame such a charge. Since the grievous injuries were confined to the legs and no life-threatening condition was established, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision to try the case as a regular magisterial matter.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRR-1144-2026 (O&M)
Case Title: State of U.T., Chandigarh Versus Sonu Yadav @ Kaddu and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rahul Arora, Addl. P. P., U.T. Chandigarh.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 7