IMPORTANT POINT
A charge under section 307 IPC requires sufficient evidence beyond mere confessions to police, which are inadmissible for such purposes.

ORDER :

V R K Krupa Sagar, J.

1. These two criminal revision cases are filed under sections 397(1) and 401 of CrPC by the accused challenging the orders of the learned trial court in not discharging them from the offence under section 307 IPC.

2. Respondent in both the revisions is the state.

3. FIR.No.18 of 2017 was registered by Kadapa II Town police station on 07.12.2017 for the offences under sections 324, 506 read with 34 IPC. After due investigation, the Sub Inspector of police filed charge sheet stating that in the crime incident three accused are involved. A1 is Smt.John Velanganamma and A2 is Sri Mallela Fransis Kumar. The third person who allegedly participated in this crime incident is stated to be Mr.Praneeth who is the son of A1. It is stated that Mr.Praneet is a juvenile in conflict with law and the necessary case would be filed before Juvenile Justice Board, Kadapa. Thus, the charge sheet filed before learned Magistrate was only against A1 and A2. The investigative conclusion of the police indicates that they are required to be prosecuted for the offences under sections 324, 307 and 506 read with 34 IPC. It seems the learned Magistrate committed the case since section 307 IPC was exclusively triable by court of sessions. Then, the case was assigned to the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadapa where it was numbered as S.C.No.129 of 2017.

4. Both the accused made their due appearance through their learned counsels. When the matter was coming up for hearing on charges, each of the two accused filed petitions under section 227 CrPC seeking their discharge. A1 preferred such petition in Crl.M.P.No.389 of 2018. State filed its counter. After due hearing, by an order dated 16.08.2023, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by it, A1 preferred Crl.R.C.No.866 of 2023. A2 seeking discharge filed petition under Section 227 CrPC and that was registered as Crl.M.P.No.388 of 2018. State filed its counter. After due hearing, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge by an order dated 16.08.2023 dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by it, A2 preferred Crl.R.C.No.899 of 2023.

5. Thus both the revision cases pertain to the same charge sheet and they are argued together and are thus to be disposed of by a common order.

6. Sri Samboju Bala Gopal, the learned counsel for petitioners in both the revisions argued that the facts on record do not indicate any offence under section 307 IPC but the learned trial court grossly erred in appreciating the same and the order passed caused grave injustice.

7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State submitted that evidence collected during investigation attract section 307 IPC and the learned trial court is right in not discharging the accused and there are no merits in these revisions.

8. The point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the impugned orders are against law and are arbitrary requiring interference?

POINT: -

9. The first schedule of the CrPC provides that trial for the offence under section 324 IPC is to be held by any Magistrate. Trial for the offence under section 506 IPC is to be held by any Magistrate if it falls within the former part of section 506 IPC and it is to be held by Judicial Magistrate of the First Class if it falls in the later part of the provision. Thus, both these offences could be tried by Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. Offence under section 307 IPC is to be tried by court of sessions.

10. It was because of section 307 IPC, the case was committed to the court of sessions and was pending before learned Assistant Sessions Judge for trial.

11. Before the court below, these accused invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court under section 227 CrPC and sought discharge. The said provision provides that the learned trial judge upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, considers that t