Every day, courts across India deal with cases where someone tried to kill another person but failed. The victim survived. But the accused doesn’t go free. Indian law punishes the attempt itself not just the result. That’s exactly what Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 deals with. It replaced the old Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
So what does Section 109 actually say? Who does it apply to? And how severe is the punishment? These are important questions whether you’re a law student, a legal professional, or simply a curious reader. In this article, we break down Section 109 BNS in plain, simple language. Let’s get started.
Related Post: Section 115 Voluntarily causing hurt of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS)
Explanation of Section 109 Attempt to Murder BNS
Section 109 BNS deals with the offence of attempt to murder. In simple terms, it says: if you do something with the intention or knowledge that your act could cause death and if that death had actually occurred, you’d be guilty of murder then you’re already liable for punishment, even if the victim survives.
The section has two subsections. Subsection (1) covers the general scenario: imprisonment up to ten years and a fine, or life imprisonment if hurt is caused to the victim. Subsection (2) takes things further. If the accused is already serving a life sentence and causes hurt during the attempt, the court can impose the death penalty or imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life. That’s a significant escalation and it’s deliberate.
Ingredients of Section 109 Attempt to Murder BNS
To convict someone under this section, the prosecution must establish a few essential elements. First, there must be a clear intention to kill or at least the knowledge that the act could cause death this is what lawyers call mens rea, the guilty mind. Second, there must be an overt act something the accused actually did, not just thought about. Third, the circumstances must be such that had the victim died, the act would legally qualify as murder.
If hurt is caused to the victim, punishment gets stricter. And if the offender is a life convict committing this new offence, the law responds with its harshest tools.
Punishment for Section 109 Attempt to Murder
| Scenario | Punishment |
| Attempt with no injury caused | Imprisonment up to 10 years + fine |
| Attempt causing hurt/injury | Life imprisonment or 10 years + fine |
| Life convict causes hurt during attempt | Death penalty or natural life imprisonment |
The legal consequences of attempted murder under BNS are not to be taken lightly. Courts treat this as one of the most serious offences against the human body.
Illustrative Examples Section 109 Attempt to Murder BNS
Let’s look at how the law plays out in real scenarios, because theory only goes so far.
Example 1: Arjun fires a gun at Rajesh intending to kill him. Rajesh ducks and survives without a scratch. Even though no injury occurred, Arjun has committed attempt to murder because if Rajesh had died, Arjun would be guilty of murder. Arjun can face up to ten years in prison.
Example 2: Meera mixes poison into food and places it on her neighbour’s table. The neighbour eats it and falls seriously ill. Here, hurt has been caused so Meera could face life imprisonment. The moment the poisoned food was placed within the victim’s reach, the attempt was complete.
Example 3: Vikram, already serving a life sentence, attacks a fellow prisoner with a weapon and injures him. Under subsection (2), the court can now sentence Vikram to death or imprisonment for the rest of his natural life. This provision exists precisely to deter life convicts from committing further violence.
One important distinction the law draws: buying a weapon is preparation, not an attempt. The offence only kicks in once an overt act like firing the weapon actually takes place. That difference between attempt and preparation is crucial in criminal law India.
Comparison of Section 109 Attempt to Murder BNS with IPC Section 307
Section 109 BNS is the direct successor to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Both share the same core DNA the requirement of criminal intent, the focus on mens rea, and the emphasis on an overt act toward the commission of murder. However, the BNS has made two meaningful improvements.
First, the BNS explicitly clarifies that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s natural life. The old IPC was vague on this, which led to inconsistent judicial interpretations. Second, the BNS introduces a sharper provision for life convicts who attempt murder making the death penalty an option if hurt is caused. In terms of comparison of BNS and IPC provisions, Section 109 is more precise, more structured, and tougher on repeat violent offenders.
Particulars of the Offence
| Particulars | Details |
| Bailable/Non-Bailable | Non-Bailable |
| Cognizable/Non-Cognizable | Cognizable |
| Compoundable/Non-Compoundable | Non-Compoundable |
| Triable By | Court of Session |
Since it’s a cognizable offence, police can arrest the accused without a warrant. It’s also non-bailable meaning bail isn’t automatic and is granted at the court’s discretion. And since it’s non-compoundable, the parties can’t simply settle it between themselves. The trial takes place in a Court of Session, which handles serious criminal matters.
Conclusion
Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 is a well-crafted provision that builds on the foundation of IPC Section 307 while fixing some of its gaps. It doesn’t just punish the result it punishes the intent and the action, even when the victim survives. That’s what makes it a powerful deterrent.
If you’re studying criminal law, working on a case, or simply want to understand your rights, knowing how Section 109 BNS works gives you a clearer picture of how India’s legal system holds people accountable for violent acts. And if you’re ever dealing with a situation involving this provision, always consult a qualified criminal lawyer because the stakes here are extremely high.

Daniel Cross is a legal researcher and freelance writer specializing in civil rights, policy analysis, and contemporary legal trends. With a strong background in academic writing and practical case review, he focuses on making complex legal concepts accessible to everyday readers while promoting clarity, fairness, and informed public discourse.