A late-night phone call. A police station. A First Information Report that mentions “Section 109 BNS.” For most families, this is the moment an ordinary life turns upside down.

Attempt to murder is one of the gravest charges under Indian criminal law. It sits just below murder itself in seriousness, and it carries consequences that can follow a person for years, even if the alleged victim survives without a scratch.

This guide breaks down Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in plain language. You will learn what the law actually says, how it differs from the old Section 307 IPC, what punishment it carries, whether bail is possible, and how real courts have applied it in 2026. Whether you are an accused person trying to understand your situation, a victim’s family seeking justice, or a student preparing for exams, this article is built to answer the questions that matter most.

What Is Section 109 BNS? — Definition and Full Text

Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 defines and punishes the offence of attempt to murder. It came into force on 1 July 2024, replacing Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as part of India’s overhauled criminal law framework.

Here is the full bare text of the provision.

Section 109(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.

Section 109(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.

The section carries forward four classic illustrations from the earlier law that courts still rely on to explain the offence.

• A person fires a loaded gun at another with the intention to kill, and even if the victim is completely unhurt, the offence is complete.
• A person intending to murder a child leaves the child in a deserted place to die.
• A person loads a gun and fires it at the intended victim.
• A person poisons food and has it placed before the intended victim, whether or not the victim actually eats it.

In simple terms, the law asks one question: if the act had actually caused death, would the accused have been guilty of murder? If the answer is yes, Section 109 applies, regardless of whether the victim survived, was injured, or escaped entirely unharmed.

Section 109 BNS vs. Section 307 IPC — Key Differences

If you have an old FIR, police notice, or judgment referring to “IPC 307,” the equivalent provision today is Section 109 BNS. The substance of the law has barely changed, but a few points are worth knowing clearly.

Aspect	Section 307 IPC (Old)	Section 109 BNS (New)
Core definition	Same hypothetical-murder test	Same hypothetical-murder test, unchanged
Ingredients	Intention/knowledge + overt act	Identical, carried forward
Punishment (no injury)	Up to 10 years + fine	Up to 10 years + fine
Punishment (injury caused)	Imprisonment for life	Imprisonment for life
Repeat offender clause	“Imprisonment for life” not defined	Section 109(2) expressly clarifies life imprisonment means the remainder of the convict’s natural life
Bail status	Non-bailable	Non-bailable
Trial court	Court of Session	Court of Session

The one substantive addition in the new law is found in Section 109(2). Earlier, courts sometimes had to interpret whether “life imprisonment” for a repeat offender meant a fixed term or the offender’s entire remaining life. The BNS removes that ambiguity by stating in clear words that it means the remainder of the convict’s natural life. This aligns with the BNS’s broader approach across several provisions of spelling out exactly what “life” sentences mean, rather than leaving room for early remission.

Because the underlying definition has not changed, Indian courts continue to rely on decades of Supreme Court precedent decided under the old Section 307 IPC when interpreting Section 109 BNS today.

Essential Legal Character of Section 109 BNS

Before getting into ingredients and punishment, it helps to understand the basic legal character of this offence, since these classifications determine how the entire criminal process will unfold.

• Cognizable offence: Police can register an FIR and begin investigation, including arrest, without needing prior permission from a magistrate.
• Non-bailable offence: Bail is not a matter of right. It must be argued for and granted by a competent court based on the facts.
• Non-compoundable offence: The case cannot be settled privately between the accused and the victim and then withdrawn. Even if the victim forgives the accused, the state continues the prosecution.
• Triable exclusively by the Court of Session: A magistrate’s court cannot conduct the full trial. After investigation, the case is committed to the Sessions Court, which alone has the power to convict or acquit.

These four features together explain why an accusation under this section is treated with such seriousness from the very first day, often resulting in immediate arrest and a demanding path to bail.

Three Essential Ingredients of Section 109 BNS

For a conviction under Section 109 BNS, the prosecution must establish three connected elements. Courts have repeatedly held that all three must be proven; missing even one is usually fatal to the prosecution’s case.

1. Intention or Knowledge (Mens Rea)

The accused must have acted with a guilty mind, either intending to cause death or knowing that the act was likely to cause death. This is the heart of the offence. Courts assess intention by looking at objective factors rather than simply accepting or rejecting oral claims, including:

• The nature of the weapon used
• The part of the body targeted, especially whether it was a vital organ
• The number and force of blows
• Whether there was any prior enmity, threat, or motive
• The conduct of the accused before and after the incident

2. An Overt Act (Actus Reus)

Intention alone is not enough. The accused must have done something concrete toward carrying out that intention. Merely planning, threatening, or preparing is generally not sufficient; there must be an actual step taken that moves beyond preparation into execution, such as firing a weapon, administering poison, or striking with a lethal object.

3. Death Did Not Occur

This is what separates attempt to murder from murder itself. The act must be one that, had it succeeded, would have amounted to murder. Whether death did not occur because of the victim’s escape, timely medical treatment, poor aim, or sheer chance is legally irrelevant. The offence is complete the moment intention and an overt act come together, regardless of the outcome for the victim.

Section 109 BNS Punishment — Complete Breakdown

Punishment under this section is not a single fixed number. It scales depending on what actually happened as a result of the act. Understanding which scenario applies to a given case is often the single biggest factor in how serious the consequences will be.

Scenario 1: Act Committed, No Injury to Victim

Where the accused commits an act with the intention or knowledge required for murder, but the victim suffers no hurt at all, the punishment is imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term which may extend to ten years, along with a fine. The classic illustration is a person who fires a loaded gun at the victim, who is completely unhurt. Even here, the ten-year maximum applies because intent, not injury, drives the offence.

Scenario 2: Act Committed, Victim Is Injured

Where the act actually causes hurt to the victim, the punishment escalates significantly. The offender becomes liable to imprisonment for life, or to the lesser punishment described above, at the discretion of the court based on the severity of the case. This is the scenario most commonly seen in stabbing, shooting, and assault cases that reach trial, and it is where courts examine the nature of the injury most closely, including whether a vital organ was targeted and how close the victim came to dying.

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

This is the most severe category under the section, introduced with added clarity in Section 109(2). If a person already under a sentence of life imprisonment commits attempt to murder and causes hurt in the process, the court may impose the death penalty, or imprisonment for life meaning the remainder of that person’s natural life. This provision exists to deter violence by convicts already serving life terms, since an ordinary life sentence with the possibility of remission would otherwise offer little additional deterrent.

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

Section 109 BNS is a non-bailable offence. This is one of the most frequently searched questions about this provision, and the short answer is clear: there is no automatic entitlement to bail. The decision rests entirely with the court, which will examine the specific facts of the case.

However, non-bailable does not mean “no bail is possible.” It only means bail cannot be granted by the police station itself and must instead be argued before a magistrate, Sessions Court, or High Court. Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly held that even in non-bailable and serious offences, bail is the rule and jail is the exception, once the accused’s continued detention is no longer necessary for a fair investigation or trial.

In practice, this means every Section 109 BNS case is decided on its own facts. Some accused persons secure bail within weeks; others remain in custody through a lengthy trial. The difference usually comes down to the strength of the evidence, the nature of the injury, and how the bail application is framed.

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

Because attempt to murder is a non-bailable and serious offence, courts apply a stringent standard, but they still weigh multiple factors before deciding whether to grant or refuse bail.

Factors Favouring Bail

• Weak, contradictory, or interested-party-only evidence of intent to kill
• Simple or non-fatal injury, not affecting a vital body part, with the victim fully recovered
• Significant, unexplained delay in registering the FIR, suggesting exaggeration or afterthought
• No prior criminal record or history of violence
• Full cooperation with the investigation, including surrender of weapons
• Completion of the material part of the investigation
• Genuine humanitarian or constitutional considerations, such as the right to education or medical necessity
• Absence of any real risk of the accused fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses

Factors Against Bail

• Use of a deadly weapon aimed at a vital part of the body
• Clear, corroborated evidence of premeditation or planning
• Serious, life-threatening injury or a victim who nearly died
• Criminal antecedents or a pattern of violent conduct
• Risk that the accused, if released, could threaten or influence witnesses
• Ongoing or incomplete investigation where custodial interrogation is still required

Types of Bail Applications in Section 109 BNS

There are three main routes available, depending on the stage of the case.

1. Anticipatory bail (Section 482 BNSS): Filed before arrest, when a person apprehends being arrested in connection with the FIR. This is heard by the Sessions Court or High Court.
2. Regular bail (Section 483 BNSS): Filed after arrest, seeking release from judicial custody while the trial or investigation continues.
3. Interim bail: A short-term, conditional bail granted for a specific, limited purpose, such as attending an examination, undergoing medical treatment, or attending a family emergency, even while the main bail application is pending.

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

In February 2026, a Sessions Court in Koppal, Karnataka delivered one of the most closely watched criminal verdicts of the year, arising from a brutal attack near Sanapur Lake in Hampi, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The facts: In March 2025, a group of five tourists, including a foreign national and other travellers, were attacked near Sanapur Lake. The accused committed sexual assault against two of the victims and pushed three male tourists into a canal. One tourist later died from the injuries sustained.

The outcome: The court convicted three accused persons and classified the case among the rarest of rare category, given the brutality, premeditation, and vulnerability of the victims in a public tourist space.

Why it matters: This case demonstrates the outer limit of how severely Indian courts will punish attempt-to-murder-related conduct when it is deliberate, brutal, and targets vulnerable victims. It reinforces that the harshest available punishment, including life imprisonment meaning the remainder of natural life, remains firmly on the table under the new BNS framework.

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

In March 2026, a Delhi court granted interim bail to an eighteen-year-old student accused under Section 109(1) BNS, allowing him to appear for his final Class XII board examination.

The facts: The accused was alleged to have held the victim while a juvenile co-accused stabbed him with a knife outside a Delhi school. He had already appeared for five of six board examination papers, with the final paper scheduled shortly after his arrest.

The court’s reasoning: The Additional Sessions Judge held that the right to education under Article 21-A of the Constitution weighed heavily in this specific, narrow situation. Missing the final paper would have meant losing the entire academic year and being forced to reappear in all six subjects. The court was careful to clarify that this limited interim bail was not an endorsement of the accusation, but a recognition of irreparable harm to the student’s academic future during the pendency of investigation. The court also noted that the school had failed to intervene after an earlier warning incident involving firecrackers just two days before the stabbing.

Why it matters: This case shows that even within the strict non-bailable framework of Section 109 BNS, courts retain the discretion to grant narrow, purpose-specific relief where a compelling, time-sensitive circumstance exists, without diluting the seriousness of the underlying charge.

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

This case marked one of the earliest applications of anticipatory bail under the new BNSS framework in a Section 109(1) BNS matter involving a serving police officer.

The facts: An Assistant Sub-Inspector serving as a Personal Security Officer to a High Court Judge was accused of pointing his official service pistol at a Chief Court Officer during a duty-related inquiry and attempting to fire, before allegedly assaulting him. An FIR was registered under Section 109(1) BNS and the Arms Act.

The court’s analysis: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail after examining the totality of circumstances. Several factors weighed decisively in the accused’s favour: all ten rounds in the service pistol were recovered intact, indicating no actual firing attempt materialised; the injuries were simple rather than grievous; the accused tendered an apology; and he fully cooperated with the recovery process. The court granted bail subject to statutory conditions, while acknowledging the institutional sensitivity of the allegations.

Why it matters: This case 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 like absence of actual firing, minor injury, and genuine cooperation can meaningfully influence the outcome, even though they do not resolve the question of guilt.

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

Since the definition and ingredients under Section 109 BNS are carried forward almost unchanged from Section 307 IPC, courts in 2026 continue to apply decades-old Supreme Court precedent when deciding new cases. The following principles remain central.

• Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (1961): A person commits the offence when there is intention to commit murder and, in pursuance of that intention, an act is done towards its commission, whether or not that act is the final, penultimate step. Actual injury is not required for conviction.
• State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983): For a conviction, the act must be done with the intention to commit murder, and the facts must show a deadly blow was inflicted with a real possibility that death could have resulted. The use of a lethal weapon and the nature of the injury are key factors courts examine.
• Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar (1965): Causing a simple injury, without clear evidence of intent to kill, does not attract attempt to murder; a lesser charge may apply instead.
• Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004): Whether or not the act results in injury, the accused remains liable under this provision if the intention to kill is independently proved.

Courts applying Section 109 BNS today, including in the Hampi attack verdict and other 2026 rulings, continue to cite these authorities directly, confirming that decades of Section 307 IPC jurisprudence remains fully relevant.

The Trial Process Under Section 109 BNS — Step by Step

Understanding the journey from FIR to judgment helps demystify what can otherwise feel like an overwhelming process.

Step 1 — FIR Registration

Since the offence is cognizable, police are legally bound to register an FIR the moment a complaint disclosing the ingredients of Section 109 BNS is made, without requiring prior court permission.

Step 2 — Police Investigation

The investigating officer collects evidence, including the weapon used, medical records, witness statements, forensic reports, and, where relevant, CCTV footage. The accused may be arrested at this stage since the offence is non-bailable.

Step 3 — Charge Sheet (Police Report)

Once investigation is complete, the police file a charge sheet before the magistrate, typically within the statutory time limit, summarising the evidence gathered and naming the accused.

Step 4 — Charges Framed

Since the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case is committed from the magistrate’s court to the Sessions Court, where formal charges are framed if the judge finds a prima facie case.

Step 5 — Evidence and Trial

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

Step 6 — Arguments

After evidence is recorded, both the prosecution and defence present final arguments on facts and applicable law before the Sessions Judge.

Step 7 — Judgment

The court delivers its verdict. If convicted, sentencing follows separately, with the court hearing arguments specifically on the appropriate punishment before passing the final sentence.

Government Update: New Criminal Laws Effective 1 July 2024

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, came into force across India on 1 July 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act respectively. Section 109 BNS falls within the chapter dealing with offences affecting the human body and directly replaces Section 307 of the erstwhile IPC. Bail applications, which were earlier filed under Sections 438 and 439 of the CrPC, are now filed under Sections 482 and 483 of the BNSS. Anyone researching an older case or judgment should keep this cross-reference in mind, since courts and lawyers frequently move between the old and new numbering during this transitional period.

Section 109 BNS vs. Related Offences — How Courts Distinguish

Section 109 BNS is often confused with neighbouring provisions. Courts draw the line carefully, because the classification directly affects punishment and bail eligibility.

• Section 109 BNS vs. Section 116 BNS (voluntarily causing grievous hurt): Section 109 specifically uses the phrase “under such circumstances,” requiring the court to examine the full context, including premeditation, planning, and the manner of attack. This phrase is conspicuously absent from Section 116 BNS. Where facts show pre-planning, use of a deadly weapon, or an attack carried out with clear deliberation, courts lean toward Section 109. Where the injury arose from a sudden quarrel without clear intent to kill, Section 116 or a related hurt provision is more appropriate.
• Section 109 BNS vs. murder (Section 103 BNS): The dividing line is simple: if death actually results from the act, and the ingredients of murder are met, the charge becomes murder. If death does not occur, but the ingredients would have amounted to murder had it occurred, the charge remains attempt to murder.
• Section 109 BNS vs. Section 110 BNS (culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attempt): Where the surrounding facts would only have amounted to culpable homicide, not murder, had death resulted, the applicable provision is Section 110 rather than Section 109. This distinction often turns on the presence or absence of grave and sudden provocation or similar mitigating circumstances.

Common Defenses in Section 109 BNS Cases

A charge under this section is serious, but it is defensible. Common defence strategies raised in Indian courts include the following.

• Absence of intention or knowledge: Arguing that the act was accidental, in self-defence, or without the mental state required for murder, based on the specific facts.
• No overt act: Showing that the accused’s conduct amounted to mere preparation or threat, not an actual step toward killing.
• Nature and location of injury: Demonstrating that the injury, if any, was minor, not on a vital body part, and inconsistent with an intention to kill.
• False implication or delay in FIR: Highlighting unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, personal enmity with the complainant, or material contradictions between the FIR and witness statements.
• Right of private defence: Arguing that the accused acted to protect themselves or another person from an imminent threat, within the limits recognised by law.
• Medical and forensic gaps: Pointing to missing medical-legal certificates, absence of weapon recovery, or forensic evidence that does not match the prosecution’s version of events.

Each of these defences depends entirely on the specific facts of the case and the quality of evidence available, which is why early legal consultation matters so much.

FAQs

Is Section 109 BNS bailable or non-bailable?

Section 109 BNS is a non-bailable offence. Bail is not automatic and must be granted by a court after examining the facts of the case.

What is the punishment for attempt to murder under Section 109 BNS?

Punishment ranges from up to 10 years imprisonment with fine if no injury occurs, to life imprisonment if hurt is caused, and potentially death for a life convict who causes hurt during a repeat attempt.

Which court tries cases under Section 109 BNS?

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

Does the victim have to be injured for Section 109 BNS to apply?

No. The offence is complete once intention or knowledge and an overt act are proven, even if the victim suffers no injury at all.

What is the difference between Section 109 BNS and Section 307 IPC?

Section 109 BNS replaces Section 307 IPC with an almost identical definition, adding express clarity in Section 109(2) that life imprisonment for a repeat offender means the remainder of the convict’s natural life.

Can anticipatory bail be granted in a Section 109 BNS case?

Yes. Courts can and do grant anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in Section 109 BNS cases, depending on factors like the nature of the injury, evidence of intent, and the accused’s cooperation.

Is Section 109 BNS compoundable?

No. It is a non-compoundable offence, meaning the case cannot be privately settled and withdrawn even if the victim and accused reach a compromise.

What is the difference between Section 109 BNS and Section 116 BNS?

Section 109 requires the court to examine “such circumstances” like premeditation and the manner of attack, while Section 116 covers grievous hurt without that same requirement. Courts look at planning, weapon use, and intent to decide which section applies.

Can a minor be charged under Section 109 BNS?

Yes, but if the accused is below 18 years of age, the case is generally handled under the Juvenile Justice Act framework rather than as an ordinary criminal trial, though this depends on the specific facts and the nature of the offence alleged.

How long does a Section 109 BNS trial usually take?

There is no fixed timeline. Trial duration depends on the complexity of evidence, number of witnesses, and court workload, and can range from under a year to several years in contested cases.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and their judicial interpretation can change, and outcomes depend entirely on the specific facts of each case. If you or someone you know is facing an accusation under Section 109 BNS, consult a qualified criminal defence lawyer immediately.