The intention or knowledge of an accused under Section 308 IPC has to be ascertained only prima facie at the stage of charge, based on the injury caused to the victim.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-05, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 794/2021, arising out of FIR bearing no. 145/2020, registered at Police Station J.P. Kalan, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC'), whereby charges have been framed against petitioners and other accused persons under Sections 341/308/323/34 of IPC by learned Trial Court.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that on 26.06.2020, upon receipt of DD no. 58A, the concerned police officials had reached the place of incident i.e. Jitan Pana Village, Dhansa, New Delhi, where they had discovered that two parties, involved in a dispute over land, had been taken to the hospital for MLC by PCR, and the injured individuals had been declared unfit to give statements by the concerned doctors. Thereafter, the concerned police officer had recorded the statement of the complainant Sh. Rakesh (respondent no. 2), who had reported that while he was at his home and his cousin brother namely Sh. Virender (respondent no. 3) had returned from work, three persons namely Anil, Shree Om and Mohit had attacked Sh. Virender with iron rods, and when he had gone to help his brother, he had also been attacked by the said persons. He had alleged that thereafter, the present petitioners i.e. Dalip, Sandeep, Deepak, Naresh, Vijay, and Kiran had also arrived at the spot, equipped with wooden sticks, and had started beating Sh. Rakesh, his mother and wife of Sh. Virender, and Sh. Virender had sustained several injuries on his head and body. On the basis of this complaint, present FIR was registered.

3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons and learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 15.11.2022 framed charges under Sections 341/308/323/34 of IPC. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:

"...After having gone through the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the record, particularly, the statements of Rakesh, Pinki, Indrawati and Virender, it appears that all accused persons were present at the spot and they attacked upon the Virender, Rakesh, Indrawati, Pinki and Kusum. In the said quarrel, Virender sustained grievous injuries, particularly, on his vital part and another person, namely, Rakesh, Indrawati, Pinki and Kusum also sustained injuries. I am of the considered view that there is a prima face case u/s 341/308/323/34 IPC against all the accused persons is made out. Accordingly, charge u/s 341/308/323/34 IPC be framed against all of them.

Separate Charge for the offence under Section 341/308/323/34 IPC is framed against the accused persons to which they plead not guilty and claim trial. PWs Rakesh, Virender and Pinky be summoned through IO concerned for next date of hearing. Also issue summons to MHIC(M) concerned to produce the case property, if any, on next date of hearing..."

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that nine persons allegedly accosted the injured, and the six petitioners herein had reached the place of incident later on and were only having wooden sticks. It is stated that the injuries received by the complainants are simple in nature except respondent no.3 who had received one grievous injury on Left Fronto Tempore Parietal, thus, the same would not attract Section 308 IPC qua the petitioners. It is further argued that there was no intention or knowledge on part of the petitioners to cause such injuries, and merely because an injury has been found on the head, it cannot be said that such an injury was c