The central legal point established in the judgment is that the application of Section 308 IPC requires a careful consideration of the accused's intention and knowledge, the type of weapon used, and the part of the body injured, and that the mere knowledge that an injury could be fatal does not automatically lead to a charge under Section 308 IPC.

SURESH KAIT, J.

CRL.M.C. No.5766/2014 1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Cr.P.C.) petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 15.09.2014 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, in Criminal Revision No.92/2014 filed by the respondent No.2.

2. After completion of investigation, though police filed the chargesheet under Sections 323/341 IPC against the petitioner, however, vide order dated 17.07.2012, charges under Sections 325/341 were framed against the petitioner.

3. On 12.12.2012, statements of PW1 to PW 3 were recorded. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application under Section 323 Cr.P.C. for committal of the case to the Sessions Court. In the said application, it was stated that respondent No.2 has received serious injuries upon her head and nature of the same was opined by the doctor as ‘grievous’, hence, an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC was made out against the petitioner, which is triable by the Sessions Court.

4. It was further stated in the said application that the applicant/respondent No.2 had earlier moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., however, the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Court stating that Section 308 IPC can be added at the appropriate stage.

5. On an application under Section 323 Cr.P.C. having been moved by the respondent No.2 for committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Trial Court passed the order dated 18.02.2014 by recording that the complainant has been examined as PW1, who deposed that she was hit on head with lathi, and PW2 and PW3 have deposed that the petitioner/accused had hit the complainant with a lathi on her head. The learned Trial Court noting that material on record showed that the complainant had been hit with lathi only once and there was no material to show that accused had hit the complainant with an intention or knowledge to cause her death, dismissed the said application moved by the respondent No.2.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.2 challenged the same before the Appellate Court by filing Criminal Revision No.92/2014. The same was allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 15.09.2014 by recording that the complainant was hit on head with lathi resulting grievous injuries for which she received nine stitches. Such a blow could have caused her death and, therefore, observed that framing of charge under Section 308 IPC was called for.

7. It was further recorded that a blow with a lathi on the head is capable of resulting in death. Simple knowledge that it could so result, ordinarily has to be imputed to the offender unless there are other circumstances to indicate that he could not have had such knowledge. Merely because the injury has been opined as simple on a vital region does not mitigate the offence under Section 308 IPC. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court was directed to take further steps.

8. The learned ASJ has relied upon the case of Ajit Singh & Anr. Vs. State, 2010 (1) JCC 792 of this Court, wherein observed that a charge under Section 308 IPC had been rightly framed where the accused had inflicted a blow on the head with a rod, even if the injury was stated to be simple in nature.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2/ complainant submitted that the complainant received the head injury, which was grievous in nature as she received nine stitches for the same. He further submitted that the said injury could have been fatal, however, the respondent No.2 survived. Thus, the learned ASJ has passed the appropriate order.

10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the learned Trial Court at the stage of framing of charge or during recording of evidence, has power to direct the police to conduct further investigation and if the Trial Court finds material on record, charge can accordingly be amend