2016 Supreme(Pat) 102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Shambhu Sharan Prasad Sinha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.33417 of 2015
Decided on : 20-01-2016
For the Petitioners:Mr. Arbind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Saroj Mumar Sharma, Advocate
For the informant :Mr. Kaushal Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP
The intention or knowledge, and not the injury, is the important factor in determining the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
Headnote:
Section 307 IPC - Quashing of Order - [341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506, 379/34 IPC] - The court discussed the application filed under Section 228(1)(a) of the CrPC seeking quashing of the order dated 20.5.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.251 of 2014, arising out of Phulwaria P.S. Case No.46 of 2013, and concluded that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC were wanting in the present case, directing the framing of charges under appropriate provision and transfer of the matter to the court of the Magistrate for trial in terms of Section 228(1)(a) of the CrPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 20.5.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.251 of 2014, arising out of Phulwaria P.S. Case No.46 of 2013, on the ground that apart from Section 307 of the IPC, all other offences are triable by a court of Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC were wanting in the present case, and directed the framing of charges under appropriate provision and transfer of the matter to the court of the Magistrate for trial in terms of Section 228(1)(a) of the CrPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was material before the court to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the intention or knowledge, and not the injury, is the important factor in determining the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. The intention has to be inferred from the attending facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of weapon used, the place where injuries were inflicted, the nature of injuries caused, and the opportunity available to the accused.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 20.05.2015, passed in Sessions Trial No.251 of 2014, was set aside, and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Begusarai, was directed to frame charges under appropriate provision and transfer the matter to the court of the Magistrate for trial in terms of Section 228(1)(a) of the CrPC.
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. By way of the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short CrPC), the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.5.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.251 of 2014, arising out of Phulwaria P.S. Case No.46 of 2013, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Begusarai, whereby, he has dismissed the application filed under Section 228(1)(a) of the CrPC.
3. One Niranjan Prasad Sinha submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge of Phulwaria Police Station on 26.03.2013 alleging therein that on the same day at about 9.20 a.m., while some labourers were working at his house, the petitioner being armed with Pagharia (a sharp cutting weapon), his son Amit Kumar Sinha being armed with an iron road and his wife Kiran Sinha being armed with a thick piece of wooden stick attacked upon him causing several injuries and on hue and cry being raised by him some neighbours and labourers came to his rescue and upon their intervention the accused persons stopped assault upon him. It is also alleged that the accused Amit Kumar Sinha took away Rs.500/- from the pocket of the informant.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation Phulwaria P.S.Case No.46 of 2013 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The police investigated the case and submitted report under Section 173 of the CrPC against the petitioner under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506/34 of the IPC pursuant to which cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial.
5. At the stage of framing of charge, an application under Section 228(1)(a) CrPC was filed on behalf of the accused persons on the ground that apart from Section 307 of the IPC all other offence are triable by a court of Magistrate and in the background of the facts alleged in the FIR coupled with the materials collected during course of investigation, ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC are not attracted in the present case. However, after hearing the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, dismissed the aforesaid application vide order dated 20.5.2015. The aforesaid order dated 20.5.2015 is under challenge in the present case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though there is allegation in the FIR that the petitioner and two others being variously armed with Pagharia, iron rod and thick wooden piece indiscriminately assaulted upon the informant, the doctor, who examined the informant could notice only one incised wound measuring 2 ½” x ¼” skin deep below right eye on the person of the informant. The Medical Officer of the PHC, Teghra, who had examined the informant, has opined that the sole injury found on the person of the informant was simple in nature. It has been further contended that though there is allegation that there was an attempt to kill the informant, the same is not corroborated by the medical evidence on record. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner in any manner intended to kill the informant. It has also been contended that the petitioner is the own brother of the informant and other accused persons are his son and wife. There is an ongoing land dispute between the parties and admittedly on the date of occurrence a minor scuffle had taken place in which the informant has sustained only one simple and superficial injury.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. It has been contended by him that to constitute an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the injury is immaterial. It is only the intention of the accused at the time of committing occurrence which would be relevant to deter