Brijendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2013 Supreme(Raj) 816

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.S.Chauhan, J.
Brijendra Singh and others - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1336 of 2012.
Decided On : 13-02-2013

Important Points

The intention or knowledge to cause death under Section 308 IPC must be inferred from the circumstances of the case, and the mere nature of the injury is not the sole criterion for determining whether an offense has been committed.

Subject

Criminal Law - ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Act Referred

INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.148, S.149, S.308, S.323, S.325, S.341

Headnote

ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CULPABLE HOMICIDE - SECTION 308 INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTERPRETATION - INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE TO CAUSE DEATH - CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE - MERE NATURE OF INJURY NOT SOLE CRITERIA

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were charged with attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for assaulting the complainant, Moolchand, with lethal weapons, causing injuries to his head. The petitioners challenged the framing of charges, arguing that the injuries were simple in nature and did not amount to an attempt to cause death.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the intention or knowledge to cause death must be inferred from the circumstances of the case and that the mere nature of the injury is not the sole criterion for determining whether an offense under Section 308 IPC has been committed.

Issues: Whether the injuries suffered by the complainant were sufficient to constitute an attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 308 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC and the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under Section 300 IPC. It held that both Sections 307 and 308 IPC punish the mens rea, or intention, accompanying the commission of the offense, and that the intention or knowledge to cause death must be culled out from the circumstances of the case.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order framing charges against the petitioners.

Advocates:
For the Petitioners:D.G. Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For the State: Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.11.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur, whereby he has framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323, 325 or 325/149, 452, 308 or 308/149 Indian Penal Code .

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the statement of one Moolchand, a formal FIR, namely FIR No.945/2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 308 and 452 Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur. According to Moolchand, on 24.11.2011, while he was sitting in his house, at 10.30 A.M., the accused-petitioners came armed with iron rods, iron pipes, axe and country made pistol. The accused Subedar Brijendra Singh told the other co-accused persons to catch hold of the complainant and to kill him. Dinesh caught hold of the complainant, Moolchand, Ranveer hit him with an axe on his head; Jagveer hit him with iron pipe; Sonu and Jagpal also hit him with iron pipes; Vishu hit him with iron pipe. Subedar Brijendra Singh hit him with a cane. Due to the assault, Moolchand fell on the floor. When he raised hue and cry, his daughter-in-law, Radha rushed to his rescue, but she too was hit by iron pipes; when the accused petitioners saw the other rescuers coming in, they fled from the scene of crime. According to Moolchand, the accused-petitioners had assaulted him and had come to his house in order to illegally occupy his land.

3. After a thorough investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted for the aforementioned offences; by order dated 20.11.2012, the learned Judge framed charges as aforementioned. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

4. Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that according to the injury report of Moolchand, he had suffered six injuries, namely (i) Lacerated wound on the mid-parietal region of skull, caused by blunt weapon, (ii) Lacerated wound on the right leg mid 1/3, caused by blunt weapon, (iii) Abrasion on right hand, (iv) Bruise in lumber region, (v) Pain in right forearm and (vi) Lacerated wound on mid-occipital region of skull.

5. According to the X-ray report, the injured had not suffered any bone injury on the skull. However, the right forearm was fractured. According to the report, while injury Nos.1,2 and 6 were simple in nature, injury No.5 was grievous in nature. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, since injuries on the head are simple in nature, the offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has further relied upon the cases of Ramlal & Ors. v. State of Raj., 2004 W.L.C.(Raj.) UC 355 , (2) Shaitan Singh Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2012(3) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 1311 , (3) Rajkumar Bohra & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2011(1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 132 , Kamla Prasad & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 139 , and on the case of Sutta @ Tejuddin & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan(S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1331/2012), decided on 08.01.2013.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that according to Section 308 Indian Penal Code , what is to be seen is that the act was done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if the act caused death, then the person would be guilty of "culpable homicide not amounting to murder". Thus, according to him, it is not merely the nature of the injuries, which is important, but also the circumstance in which the injuries were caused. Moreover, according to him, Section 308 Indian Penal Code is divided in two parts as far as sentence is concerned: in the first part the sentence is three years, but in case hurt is caused, then according to the second part the sentence would increase from 3 years to 7 years. According to him, it is pertinent to note that the accused persons had come armed with lethal weapons, like iron rods, iro