Mr. Roshan Lal, your client inflicted a lathi blow on the victim's head. The medical evidence shows fractures of both parietal bones, neurological complications, and multi-organ failure. How can you say there was no intention to cause death? A blow on the head with a lathi is inherently dangerous.

My Lord, the fact that a blow on the head is dangerous does not automatically mean the accused intended to cause death. Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention to cause death, not merely that the act was dangerous. In this case, the incident was spontaneous — the victim intervened in an altercation, and the appellants reacted. There was no premeditation. The weapon was an ordinary lathi, not a deadly weapon like a knife or gun. There is no evidence that the appellants persisted in the assault after the victim fell. This Court has consistently held that intention must be inferred from surrounding circumstances. Here, the circumstances suggest the object was to deter the victim from interfering, not to kill him.

The High Court relied on the post-incident conduct of the accused — lodging false FIRs against witnesses — as evidence of their culpability. Is that not relevant to show their state of mind?

My Lord, the post-incident conduct may be relevant, but it cannot substitute for proof of intention to cause death under Section 307 IPC. The false FIRs were filed by co-accused Satya Prakash, not by all appellants. Moreover, those FIRs were filed after the incident and relate to attempts to intimidate witnesses, not to the intention at the time of the assault. The question under Section 307 IPC is what was the intention at the moment of the assault. Post-incident conduct cannot retrospectively create an intention that did not exist at the time of the assault. The Trial Court and High Court erred by using this conduct to affirm the conviction under Section 307 IPC.

The victim suffered fractures in both parietal bones, neurological complications, and was in hospital for nearly two months. Is that not sufficient to show that the injuries were intended to cause death?

My Lord, the severity of the injury is a relevant factor, but it is not determinative. This Court in Saleem and Bipin Bihari has held that the nature of the injury is not essential for conviction under Section 307 IPC, and conversely, the severity alone cannot prove intention. Intention must be inferred from the totality of circumstances. Here, the absence of premeditation, the absence of prior enmity, the spontaneous nature of the occurrence, and the use of ordinary lathis all point away from an intention to cause death. The appellants accept that they caused grievous hurt, and they are willing to be convicted under Section 325 IPC. But Section 307 IPC requires a higher mental element — intention to cause death — which is not proved.

The Trial Court sentenced the appellants to seven years under Section 307 IPC. You are asking for the sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone (2 years 8 months for some appellants). Is that not too lenient for causing such serious injuries?

My Lord, the appellants do not seek acquittal. They accept conviction under Section 325 IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years. The sentence already undergone by the appellants — ranging from 1 year 1 month to 2 years 8 months — is within the range of sentences under Section 325 IPC. Moreover, the incident occurred in 2000 — over 26 years ago. The appellants have been on bail since 2011. They are aged now. The purpose of punishment — deterrence and retribution — has been served. This Court may impose a fine to compensate the victim. The sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.

For PetitionerCriminal Premium

No Intention to Cause Death, Conviction Under Section 307 Unsustainable — (2026) INSC 524

The appellants caused injuries in a spontaneous altercation without premeditation or intention to kill. The weapons used were ordinary lathis, not deadly weapons.

Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana — (2026) INSC 524

Core Argument

The appellants caused injuries in a spontaneous altercation without premeditation or intention to kill. The weapons used were ordinary lathis, not deadly weapons. The prosecution failed to prove the requisite intention under Section 307 IPC. The conviction should be altered to Section 325 IPC (grievous hurt) or the appellants acquitted.

Key Precedents

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem @ Chamaru (2005) 5 SCC 554 — Held that to justify conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted; intention may be deduced from other circumstances, but must be proved.
Bipin Bihari v. State of M.P. (2006) 8 SCC 799 — Reiterated that an attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act; however, intention must be established.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in