Back
GAJENDRA SINGH
Vivek @ Vicky – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred challenging the legality of framing of charges of Head No.2 and 4 i.e. under Section 109(1) and 351(3) of the BNSS, 2023 vide order dated 21.08.2025 passed in S.T.No.34/2025 arising out of Crime No.232/2025 registered at Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain.
2. The charges have been framed regarding incident dated 22.05.2025 at 01:45 am occurred in front of Police Station Nagda, near Shiv Mandir, Nagda, Ujjain in which Rahul sustained injury by knife.
3. The trial Court framed the charges under Section 296, 109(1), 115(2) and 315(3) of the BNS, 2023 and this revision petition has been preferred challenging the charges i.e. Head No.2 and 4 only on the ground that vide report dated 11.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1) Dr. Ajay Kabra, the doctor of Indubhai Parekh Memorial Hospital, Birlagram, Nagda has opined that sharp incised wounds found at left arm size 7 x 2 cm. was neither a deep wound nor dangerous to life and second wound was also sharp incised wound and without treatment no chance of death. The wounds were not on vital part of the body.
4. It is further argued that it is a clear case of misuse of law as well
Attempt to murder – Nature of injuries is not a decisive factor to determine as to whether act of assailant would be an act punishable under Section 307 of IPC or not.
At the charge framing stage, the court only needs to establish a prima facie case indicating the accused might have committed the offence, without delving into the sufficiency of evidence.
The court affirmed that for Section 307 IPC, causing hurt with intent or knowledge is sufficient, and the trial court must assess evidence to determine if charges are warranted.
For charges under IPC Section 307, mere injuries perceived as simple do not absolve the accused; intent demonstrated through acts suffices, even without grievous harm.
The trial court must thoroughly evaluate evidence before framing charges, as mechanical adoption of prosecution's stance is inappropriate.
The court established that at the charge framing stage, a strong suspicion of guilt suffices to proceed, without requiring proof of the allegations.
For framing charges under Section 307 IPC, intention and knowledge are crucial, and a prima facie case must be established based on the injuries and circumstances surrounding the incident.
At the stage of framing charges, only a strong suspicion of the accused committing an offense is required, and the final test of guilt is not applied at this stage.
Charges under Section 307 IPC were improperly framed as the injuries were not grievous; the court directed charges under Section 308 IPC instead.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
