The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to assess the intention and knowledge of the accused in cases involving Section 307 of IPC, and the importance of establishing a prima facie case for framing charges based on the evidence presented.

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.

1. Legality, propriety and correctness of an impugned order of framing charge against respondent Nos. 2 and 3(Original accused Nos. 1 and 2) by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Margao has been challenged invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The petitioner is the original complainant and the victim of the assault by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the wee hours of 31.5.2014 near KTC bus stand Margao. It reveals from the record that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention abused the petitioner in a filthy language. They committed mischief by damaging his Ritz car bearing registration No. GA-08/K-2603 by causing a loss to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- and, inter alia, attempted to commit his murder by assaulting him on his head with an iron baton resulting into grievous injuries.

3. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint by the petitioner, an FIR came to be registered on 31.5.2014, vide Crime No. 273/2014 under Sections 504, 427, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid a charge-sheet against the respondents in the Court of JMFC Margao.

4. After committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while hearing an application of discharge on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, by the impugned order discharged them of the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, inter alia, remanding the case back to the Court of learned JMFC for framing charge of assault in accordance with law.

5. I heard Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1 and 4, who supported the arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

6. Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel took me through the record, panchanama, statement of the witnesses as well as the medical certificate of the petitioner. At the outset, Shri Lotlikar, would submit that at the stage of framing charge re-appreciation of the evidence on record is not permissible which had been done by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order. He drew my attention to paragraph 19 of the impugned order by stating that factually incorrect observations have been made by the learned Judge which reads that the injury certificate does not mention that the injuries were grievous in nature or it would have resulted in death of the complainant. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the medical certificate, in fact, indicates that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries on the left parietal region which required 8 stitches. The learned Senior Counsel also drew my attention to the supplementary statement of the petitioner as well as the statement of Ms. Sagarika Mujumdar. According to him, the tenor of the statement of the petitioner vis-à-vis the nature of the injuries and the type of weapon used by the respondents as well as the part of the body chosen by them to dealt a blow would prima facie indicate that they intended to eliminate the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order needs to be set aside by directing a charge to be framed under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 supported the impugned order by stating that it was an incident in a spur of moment and in a heat of passion wherein respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had never intended to kill the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, Sagarika Mujumdar is the girl friend of respondent No. 2. It is also submitted that had there been an intention to kill the petitioner, respondent No. 2 would not have given a single blow. The learned Counsel also drew my attention to the conduct of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which can be borne out from the statement of Sagarika before the police wherein she had stated that the respondent Adriel took iron baton from the Eric and hit the same on the car