A knife raised in anger. A gunshot that misses. A punch that lands near a vein instead of a rib. In each of these situations, the victim walks away alive, yet the person who acted can still be arrested that same night, denied bail the next morning, and sent to a Sessions Court trial that may end in a life sentence.

This is the reality of Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), India’s law on attempt to murder.

Since 1 July 2024, Section 109 BNS has replaced the familiar Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The section number is new. The core idea is not: the law punishes a person the moment their act shows a clear intention or knowledge that death could result, regardless of whether the victim actually dies or is even hurt.

For an accused person, a complainant, a family member, or a law student trying to make sense of the 2023 reforms, this guide walks through everything that matters: what Section 109 BNS actually says, how its punishment is structured, whether bail is realistically possible, how real courts have applied it in 2026, and what the trial process looks like from FIR to judgment.

What Is Section 109 BNS? — Definition and Full Text

Section 109 sits in Chapter VI of the BNS, the chapter dealing with offences affecting the human body and offences affecting life. It is the direct successor to Section 307 IPC, and its wording is almost identical, carried forward with only a few important clarifications.

The bare text of Section 109 BNS reads:

(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 given under the section:

1. A shoots at Z with the intention of killing him, in circumstances where, had Z died, A would be guilty of murder. Even though Z survives, A is punishable under Section 109.
2. A deliberately abandons a young child in a deserted place, intending the child to die of exposure or starvation. Even if the child is later rescued alive, A has still committed the offence.

In plain language, Section 109 BNS punishes an act that is carried out with murderous intent or knowledge, where the only thing standing between the accused and a murder charge is that the victim happened to survive.

Section 109 BNS vs. Section 307 IPC — Key Differences

Lawyers and litigants often ask whether shifting from Section 307 IPC to Section 109 BNS changes anything substantive. The honest answer is: very little, apart from one meaningful clarification.

Aspect	Section 307 IPC (Old)	Section 109 BNS (New)
Core definition	Same intention/knowledge test as murder	Identical wording carried forward
Basic punishment	Up to 10 years + fine	Up to 10 years + fine
Punishment if hurt caused	Life imprisonment or the above	Life imprisonment or the above
Meaning of “life imprisonment”	Not expressly defined in the section itself	Expressly clarified to mean the remainder of natural life for repeat life-convicts
Provision for existing life convicts	Covered under Section 307(2) IPC, but less explicit	Section 109(2) BNS spells out death or full-life imprisonment more clearly
Case law	Decades of Supreme Court precedent	Same precedent continues to apply, since ingredients are unchanged
Applicable date	Offences committed before 1 July 2024	Offences committed on or after 1 July 2024

The practical takeaway: courts continue to rely on IPC-era judgments such as State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and State of M.P. v. Saleem when interpreting Section 109 BNS, because the ingredients of the offence were not rewritten. What changed is a sharper legislative statement that, for a person already serving a life sentence who attempts murder and causes hurt, “life imprisonment” now unambiguously means imprisonment until the end of that person’s natural life, not a term that could be remitted after fourteen or twenty years.

Which law applies to a given case depends entirely on the date of the offence, not the date of the FIR or the trial. An incident from 2023 will still be tried under Section 307 IPC even if the chargesheet is filed in 2026.

Essential Legal Character of Section 109 BNS

Before looking at punishment and bail, it helps to understand how the law classifies this offence, since that classification decides how the police and courts must treat every case filed under it.

• Cognizable offence: The police can register an FIR and arrest the accused without needing a warrant or prior court permission.
• Non-bailable offence: Bail is not a matter of right. It must be argued for and granted at the discretion of a court.
• Non-compoundable offence: The complainant and accused cannot privately settle the case and have it withdrawn. Only a court, through its inherent powers, can bring such proceedings to an end in exceptional circumstances.
• Triable exclusively by the Court of Session: A magistrate’s court cannot conduct the trial. The matter goes to a Sessions Judge at the district level from the outset.

These four features, taken together, explain why an attempt-to-murder charge feels so much heavier than most other criminal allegations, even when the victim’s injuries turn out to be minor.

Three Essential Ingredients of Section 109 BNS

For a conviction to stand, the prosecution must establish three connected ingredients. Courts test each of these carefully, because missing even one ingredient can bring the charge down to a lesser offence, such as causing hurt or grievous hurt.

1. Intention or Knowledge (Mens Rea)

The accused must have acted with the same guilty mind that would make the act murder if death had actually resulted. This is often called the “hypothetical murder test”: a judge mentally asks, “If the victim had died from this act, would the accused be guilty of murder?” If the answer is yes, the intention element for Section 109 BNS is satisfied.

Intention is rarely proved by a confession. Courts infer it from surrounding facts: the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, the number of blows, prior enmity between the parties, and the conduct of the accused immediately before and after the act.

2. An Overt Act (Actus Reus)

Intention alone is not enough. The law requires a definite act that goes beyond mere preparation. Buying a knife, loading a gun, or mixing poison into food that has not yet been served is preparation, not an attempt. The moment the accused stabs, fires, or actually offers the poisoned food to the victim, the act crosses into “attempt” territory.

This is often the most contested ingredient in a Section 109 BNS trial, because the line between preparation and attempt is factual, not automatic, and depends heavily on how close the accused came to completing the act.

3. Death Did Not Occur

The final defining feature of Section 109 is that the victim survives, or is not harmed at all. If death results, the case shifts entirely to Section 103 BNS (murder), not Section 109. Importantly, the survival of the victim, or even their complete escape from injury, does not weaken the charge. As the courts have repeatedly held, firing a loaded gun at someone and missing entirely is still attempt to murder, because the offence is complete the moment the act with murderous intent is done.

Section 109 BNS Punishment — Complete Breakdown

The punishment structure under Section 109 BNS is tiered according to the outcome of the act and the antecedents of the offender. Courts do not automatically impose the maximum sentence; the actual punishment is calibrated to the weapon used, the severity of injury, the degree of premeditation, and the offender’s criminal history.

Scenario 1: Act Committed, No Injury to Victim

If the accused carries out an act with murderous intent but the victim escapes unharmed, such as a bullet that misses or a knife blow that is deflected, the punishment is:

• Imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term which may extend to 10 years
• A fine, in addition to imprisonment

Scenario 2: Act Committed, Victim Is Injured

If the same act results in hurt to the victim, even a relatively minor injury, the punishment escalates significantly:

• Imprisonment for life, or
• Imprisonment for a term extending up to 10 years plus fine, at the discretion of the trial court based on the specific facts

The choice between these two options is not automatic. A court examines the weapon, the location of the injury on the body, and the degree of danger to life before deciding whether to impose the maximum life sentence or a fixed term.

Scenario 3: Offender Already Serving Life Imprisonment, Victim Is Injured

This is the sub-section that marks the sharpest departure in tone from the old IPC framework. Where a person already under a sentence of life imprisonment commits a fresh act of attempted murder and causes hurt in the process, the court may impose:

• Death penalty, or
• Imprisonment for life, which now expressly means imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, with no scope for ordinary remission

This provision targets repeat and habitual violent offenders and reflects the legislature’s stated intent to deal more strictly with those who reoffend violently while already in custody or on release from a life sentence.

Is Section 109 BNS Bailable or Not? — The Complete Answer

No. Section 109 BNS is a non-bailable offence.

This means bail is never automatic. The accused, or their lawyer, must file a formal bail application before a competent court, and the court examines the facts before deciding whether to grant or refuse it.

Non-bailable does not mean “no bail ever.” Indian courts have granted bail in a meaningful number of Section 109 BNS and erstwhile Section 307 IPC cases, particularly where the evidence of intent is weak, injuries are simple in nature, or there has been unexplained delay in filing the FIR. What it does mean is that the accused carries no presumption in their favour; the burden is on them to persuade the court that continued custody is unnecessary.

Because the offence is also cognizable, an accused person can be arrested without a warrant the moment an FIR is registered, which is why acting quickly, through anticipatory bail if an arrest has not yet happened, matters so much in these cases.

How to Get Bail in Section 109 BNS Cases — Factors Courts Consider

Bail decisions in attempt-to-murder cases are highly fact-specific. No two cases are decided on identical reasoning, but certain recurring factors appear again and again across Sessions Courts and High Courts.

Factors Favouring Bail

• The injury caused is simple in nature and not on a vital part of the body
• Medical evidence shows the wound was not, by itself, dangerous to life
• There is significant, unexplained delay in registering the FIR
• The weapon or method used does not support a clear inference of murderous intent
• The accused has no prior criminal record
• There is little or no risk of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence or witnesses
• The dispute is essentially personal or private in nature, with a genuine possibility of settlement
• The investigation, including recovery of the weapon, is already complete
• An apology or undertaking has been tendered, along with cooperation with the investigating agency
• Special personal circumstances, such as an ongoing board examination, medical condition, or dependent family members, create disproportionate hardship if bail is refused

Factors Against Bail

• Clear, direct evidence of premeditation and pre-existing enmity
• Use of a deadly weapon aimed at a vital part of the body, such as the neck, chest, or head
• Multiple, coordinated blows or a sustained, brutal assault
• A prior criminal history involving violence
• Genuine apprehension that the accused may influence witnesses or destroy evidence
• Circumstances that a court finds shockingly brutal, premeditated, or targeted at especially vulnerable victims

Types of Bail Applications in Section 109 BNS

1. Anticipatory Bail: Filed before arrest, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), when a person apprehends arrest. Since Section 109 BNS is a serious, non-bailable offence, anticipatory bail here is decided with considerable caution, though it is not barred outright.
2. Regular Bail: Filed after arrest and while in judicial or police custody, under Section 483 BNSS, before the Sessions Court or High Court.
3. Interim Bail: A short-term, purpose-specific bail, often granted to allow the accused to attend an urgent personal event, such as an examination, medical treatment, or a family emergency, while the main bail application or trial is still pending.

2026 Featured Case Study 1: Karnataka Sessions Court — Hampi Attack Case

In February 2026, a Sessions Court in Koppal district, Karnataka, delivered one of the most closely watched verdicts of the year, arising out of a brutal incident near Sanapur Lake, close to the Hampi UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The facts: On the night of 6 March 2025, a group of tourists, including an Israeli woman and an American man, were approached by three men on a motorcycle who demanded money. When the group refused, the accused turned violent, pushing three of the male tourists into a canal and sexually assaulting the two women in the group. One of the male tourists, from Odisha, was found dead the following day, while the others survived the attack.

The outcome: The Sessions Court convicted the three accused and, in relation to the tourists who survived being pushed into the canal, treated their conduct as squarely falling within the scope of attempted murder, alongside the more serious charge connected to the tourist who died. Classifying the case as falling in the “rarest of rare” category due to its brutality and the vulnerability of the victims, the court handed down the death penalty, with the sentence now pending confirmation before the Karnataka High Court, as required under Indian law whenever a Sessions Court imposes capital punishment.

Why this case matters for Section 109 BNS: It demonstrates that courts are willing to treat an attempt-to-murder component within a larger, brutal crime with the same severity as the completed offence, especially where the act is premeditated, targets defenceless victims, and takes place in a public or semi-public space.

2026 Featured Case Study 2: Delhi Court — Class XII Student Granted Interim Bail

In sharp contrast to the Hampi case, a Delhi court in March 2026 illustrated the more compassionate, discretionary side of bail jurisprudence under Section 109 BNS.

The facts: An 18-year-old student was arrested under Section 109(1) BNS after allegedly holding a classmate while a juvenile co-accused stabbed the victim near the gate of a school in Delhi, reportedly following an earlier, unresolved altercation involving firecrackers on campus.

The outcome: The Additional Sessions Judge granted interim bail limited strictly to allowing the accused to appear for his final Class XII board examination paper, in Sociology, noting that he had already completed five of six papers. The court observed that losing an entire academic year at this stage would cause irreparable prejudice that could not be undone even if he were later acquitted, but was careful to clarify that this limited relief was not an endorsement of the allegations against him.

The judge also pointed out a broader institutional failure: the school had taken no disciplinary or counselling action after the earlier firecracker incident, despite a complaint, and remarked that timely intervention by a teacher or counsellor might have prevented the case from reaching a courtroom at all.

Why this case matters for Section 109 BNS: It shows that even within the strict, non-bailable framework of Section 109 BNS, courts retain the discretion to grant narrowly tailored, purpose-specific interim relief where genuine, irreversible hardship is demonstrated, without weakening the seriousness of the underlying charge.

2026 Featured Case Study 3: Punjab & Haryana High Court — ASI Anticipatory Bail Case

The case of ASI Dilbag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh gave one of the earliest tests of anticipatory bail under the new BNSS framework in a Section 109(1) BNS matter.

The facts: The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector serving as a Personal Security Officer to a High Court Judge, was accused of pointing his service pistol at a Chief Court Officer and attempting to fire it during a routine inquiry. An FIR was registered under Section 109(1) BNS along with the Arms Act.

The outcome: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail after weighing the totality of circumstances. Several factors proved decisive: all ten rounds in the service pistol were recovered intact, indicating that no actual firing had taken place; the injuries involved were simple in nature; the accused had tendered an apology; and he had fully cooperated with the recovery process. The court also built in due-process safeguards, including a requirement of written notice before requiring the petitioner to join the investigation.

Why this case matters for Section 109 BNS: It confirms that a serious charge under Section 109(1) BNS does not create an automatic bar to anticipatory bail. Courts will conduct a nuanced, risk-based assessment, and factors such as the absence of actual violence, simple injuries, and full cooperation can meaningfully tilt the outcome in the accused’s favour, even in high-profile cases involving law enforcement personnel.

Section 109 BNS — Landmark Supreme Court Principles (Applied in 2026)

Because the ingredients of Section 109 BNS mirror Section 307 IPC almost exactly, Indian courts continue to apply decades of Supreme Court precedent when deciding new cases. Some of the principles most frequently cited in 2026 include:

• State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983): The nature and extent of the injury is a relevant factor, but it is not the sole or decisive test. Even where the actual injury is minor, the surrounding circumstances and intention can still support a conviction.
• State of M.P. v. Saleem (2005): The absence of an injury on a vital part of the body is not, by itself, a ground to rule out attempt to murder; the court must look at intention and the nature of the act as a whole.
• Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014): The Supreme Court clarified that offences under this provision are not purely private wrongs, so quashing proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the parties must be approached with great caution. However, where the evidence is weak, the injury is minor, the dispute is essentially personal, and continuing the trial would serve no real purpose, a High Court may still exercise its inherent powers to quash the case.
• Vivek @ Vicky v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025): Decided under the new law itself, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that at the stage of framing charges, a court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial into exactly how deep or dangerous a wound was. This confirms that the older body of Section 307 IPC case law continues to apply directly to Section 109 BNS.
• Hari Singh v. State of Haryana (1993): A single, forceful blow with a dangerous weapon like an axe to the head can be enough to establish murderous intent, given the seriousness of the act itself.
• Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar (1965): Causing only a simple injury, without any clear evidence of intent to kill, will not attract an attempt-to-murder conviction; it may instead fall under a lesser offence of causing hurt.

Together, these principles explain why outcomes in Section 109 BNS cases vary so widely. Two cases with similar injuries can end very differently depending on the weapon used, the presence or absence of premeditation, and how convincingly the prosecution establishes intent.

The Trial Process Under Section 109 BNS — Step by Step

Understanding the journey of a Section 109 BNS case, from the first police report to the final judgment, helps demystify what can otherwise feel like an overwhelming and unpredictable process.

Step 1 — FIR Registration

Since the offence is cognizable, the police are legally bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) once a complaint disclosing a Section 109 BNS offence is made. No prior court permission is needed at this stage.

Step 2 — Police Investigation

Investigators record statements, collect medical evidence such as the injury or wound certificate, seize weapons, examine the crime scene, and, where relevant, obtain forensic reports. The accused may be arrested during this stage without a warrant.

Step 3 — Charge Sheet (Police Report)

Once the investigation is complete, the police file a charge sheet before the magistrate, summarising the evidence gathered and the sections of law applied. Because Section 109 BNS is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the magistrate commits the case to the Sessions Court.

Step 4 — Charges Framed

The Sessions Judge examines the material on record and, if satisfied that a prima facie case exists, formally frames charges against the accused. At this stage, courts have made clear they are not conducting a detailed assessment of the strength of the evidence, only checking whether a triable case exists.

Step 5 — Evidence and Trial

Both sides present their evidence. The prosecution examines witnesses, including the victim, eyewitnesses, medical officers, and investigating officers, while the defence cross-examines them and may present its own witnesses and evidence.

Step 6 — Arguments

Once evidence has been recorded, both the prosecution and defence present final arguments, addressing whether the three essential ingredients of Section 109 BNS have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Step 7 — Judgment

The Sessions Judge delivers a reasoned judgment, either convicting or acquitting the accused. If convicted, a separate hearing on sentencing typically follows, where the court considers mitigating and aggravating factors before deciding the exact punishment within the range Section 109 BNS allows.

Government Update: New Criminal Laws Effective 1 July 2024

Section 109 BNS did not arrive in isolation. It came into force on 1 July 2024 as part of a sweeping overhaul of India’s entire criminal justice framework, alongside two companion statutes:

• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), replacing the Indian Penal Code, 1860
• The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

For attempt-to-murder cases specifically, the practical rule is one of timing. Offences committed before 1 July 2024 continue to be charged and tried under Section 307 IPC and the old Code of Criminal Procedure, even if the trial is still ongoing today. Offences committed on or after that date fall under Section 109 BNS and are processed under the BNSS, including its provisions on anticipatory and regular bail. This is why both Section 307 IPC and Section 109 BNS continue to appear side by side in current court rolls and legal advice.

Section 109 BNS vs. Related Offences — How Courts Distinguish

Section 109 BNS does not exist in isolation. Courts must often decide whether a given set of facts falls under this section or under a related, sometimes overlapping, provision.

• Section 109 BNS (Attempt to Murder) vs. Section 110 BNS (Attempt to Culpable Homicide): Section 110 applies where the act, had it caused death, would only amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder itself. This typically involves a lower degree of intention or the presence of a mitigating factor, such as grave and sudden provocation, that would reduce a completed killing from murder to culpable homicide.
• Section 109 BNS vs. Section 103 BNS (Murder): The dividing line is simple: if the victim dies as a result of the act, the charge is murder under Section 103. If the victim survives, and the other ingredients of intention and overt act are present, the charge is attempt to murder under Section 109.
• Section 109 BNS vs. Section 118 BNS (Voluntarily Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapons): Where the evidence does not clearly establish an intention or knowledge sufficient to constitute murder if death had occurred, but the act still caused serious injury with a dangerous weapon, courts often convict under the hurt-related provisions instead of Section 109.
• Section 109 BNS vs. Section 302 BNSS procedural safeguards: Since capital punishment can be a possible outcome under Section 109(2) BNS, courts must strictly follow procedural safeguards during sentencing, including a separate hearing on the question of sentence, before ever awarding the death penalty.

The distinction almost always turns on the strength and clarity of the intention evidence, which is why the same set of facts can sometimes support more than one possible charge until the trial court examines the complete evidence.

Common Defenses in Section 109 BNS Cases

Defence strategies in attempt-to-murder cases generally focus on breaking one of the three essential ingredients, or on procedural weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.

• Absence of intention or knowledge: Arguing that the act was accidental, done in self-defence, or occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation, rather than with murderous intent.
• Act amounted only to preparation: Contending that the accused had not gone far enough to complete an “attempt” in the legal sense, so the charge should be reduced or dropped.
• Nature and location of injury: Presenting medical evidence to show the injury was simple, not life-threatening, and not inflicted on a vital organ, to argue for a lesser offence.
• Right of private defence: Where the accused acted to protect themselves or another person from an ongoing attack, and the force used was proportionate to the threat faced.
• False implication or delay in FIR: Highlighting inconsistencies in witness statements, unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, or personal enmity between the parties as grounds to question the credibility of the prosecution’s version.
• Alibi: Establishing, through credible evidence, that the accused was not present at the scene when the offence is alleged to have occurred.

No defence is automatic. Its success depends entirely on how convincingly it is supported by medical, forensic, and testimonial evidence presented at trial.

FAQs

Is Section 109 BNS bailable?

No. Section 109 BNS is a non-bailable offence, though courts can still grant anticipatory, regular, or interim bail depending on the facts.

What is the maximum punishment under Section 109 BNS?

The maximum punishment is the death penalty, but only where the offender is already serving a life sentence and causes hurt during a fresh attempt to murder.

What is the minimum punishment under Section 109 BNS?

There is no fixed statutory minimum; courts have discretion up to 10 years imprisonment where no hurt is caused, based on the facts of each case.

Which court hears Section 109 BNS cases?

Section 109 BNS is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, not a magistrate’s court.

Can the victim’s injury be minor and still lead to a conviction?

Yes. Courts have held that the nature of the injury is relevant but not decisive; clear intention and an overt act can support a conviction even with a minor injury.

Does a compromise between the parties end the case?

Not automatically. Section 109 BNS is non-compoundable, though a High Court may, in limited circumstances, use its inherent powers to quash proceedings after a genuine settlement.

What replaced Section 307 IPC?

Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, replaced Section 307 IPC with effect from 1 July 2024.

Can police arrest without a warrant under this section?

Yes. Section 109 BNS is a cognizable offence, allowing arrest without a warrant.

Is anticipatory bail possible in a Section 109 BNS case?

Yes. Courts have granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in Section 109 BNS cases where factors such as absence of actual violence, cooperation, and simple injuries favour the accused.

Does attempt to murder require the use of a weapon?

No. Any act done with murderous intent qualifies, including poisoning, abandonment of a vulnerable person, or strangulation attempts, whether or not a weapon is used.

Conclusion

Section 109 BNS carries forward one of the most serious offences in Indian criminal law, largely unchanged in substance from the old Section 307 IPC, but sharpened in its treatment of repeat and habitual offenders. Its defining feature, that the offence is complete the moment murderous intent meets an overt act, regardless of whether the victim is harmed at all, is exactly why an FIR under this section can upend a person’s life within hours.

At the same time, as the 2026 cases from Karnataka, Delhi, and Chandigarh show, courts do not apply this law mechanically. They weigh intent, injury, conduct, and context with real care, whether that means imposing the harshest sentence available for a brutal, premeditated crime, or carving out narrow, humane relief for a young student caught in a moment of school violence. If you or someone you know is facing an allegation under Section 109 BNS, the facts of the case, and how quickly and clearly they are presented in court, will shape everything that follows. Consulting an experienced criminal lawyer at the earliest possible stage, whether to prepare an anticipatory bail application, respond to an FIR, or build a defence for trial, remains the single most important step in navigating a Section 109 BNS case.