Back
NAVIN CHAWLA
Naresh Kumar And Others – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 5799/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.REV.P. 257/2024 & CRL.M.A. 5798/2024
2. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') challenging the Order dated 12.12.2023 (hereinafter referred to as `Impugned Order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-06 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Trial Court') in SC 455/2023, titled State v. Naresh Kumar @ Sunny, arising out of the FIR No. 303/2023 registered at Police Station: Tigri under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC'). Later, the charge-sheet was filed inter alia against the petitioners under Sections 307/34 of the IPC.
3. Issue notice.
4. Notice is accepted by Ms.Priyanka Dalal, learned APP for the State.
5. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has found prima facie case for offence under Sections 307/34 of the IPC to be made out inter alia against the petitioners and consequently, has directed framing of the charge accordingly.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the MLC dated 05.08.2023 carried out at the Jai Prakas
The Court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the Court at the present stage and the need for evidence to be presented during the trial for determining the intention or knowledge of the accused.
The court clarified that mere injuries do not justify Section 307 IPC charges without evident homicidal intent, emphasizing strict interpretation of criminal law concerning bodily harm.
Intent to kill is essential for Section 307 IPC; mere infliction of injury does not establish attempted murder without clear evidence of intent.
Intent and knowledge regarding the commission of offences under Section 307 IPC can be inferred from actions and circumstances, regardless of the nature or extent of actual injuries inflicted.
The court held that the mere presence of injuries does not negate intent; evidence of planning and the nature of injuries confirmed the charge of attempt to murder, illustrating the required intent a....
Charges under Section 307 IPC cannot be framed without clear evidence demonstrating common intention to kill, emphasizing the need for careful assessment of material at the charge stage.
Discharge stage limits court to prima facie case assessment without evidence scrutiny; 'dangerous to life' injury equals grievous hurt, but single abdominal sharp blow amid road rage insufficient for....
Framing charges under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent or knowledge to kill, which was lacking, thereby limiting the charges to less serious offences.
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
