IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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 as process of law. The F.I.R. has been registered in the influence of complainant without seeking query from doctor in connection with Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023. The trial Court committed error in not considering the fact that no case under Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 is made out as the injury sustained was not dangerous to life. Heard.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the revision petition.

6. Perused the material filed with the revision petition as well as the case diary made available by the prosecution.

7. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another-(2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and held thus:

“10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:

“ 227. Discharge.—If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”

If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.

11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.”

8. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation-(2010) 9 SCC 368, (2010) 9 SCC 368