The intention to kill is a crucial element in determining the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The use of a firearm or the infliction of grievous injuries alone does not suffice to establish such an intention.

1. - This is revision petition under Section 37/401 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.3.2010 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh whereby the accused-non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 were discharged from the offence falling under Section 307 & 307/34 IPC and matter was returned to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh for trial.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for setting aside the order discharging the respondents under Section 307 IPC submitted that there were as many as 15 injuries and out of which, injury Nos. 1,2, 14 and 15 are grievous.

3. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mohan & Ors. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 4663 to argue that the above-mentioned injuries being grievous, Section 307 IPC was made out. It is further stated that the accused had a pistol in their pocket which further shows that there was intention to kill.

4. Heard.

5. As per the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of M.P. (supra) as relying on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the hurt caused need not be grievous hurt or injury on vital part. Any act done with intention or knowledge that it may cause death is sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC. Para 16 of the judgment reads as under:-

"16. High Court was of opinion that injuries has not been caused on vital parts of the body. In order to attract Section 307, the injury need not be on the vital parts of the body. In order to attract Section 307, causing of hurt is sufficient. If anybody does any act with intention or knowledge that by his act he might cause death and hurt is caused, that is sufficient to attract life imprisonment. Section 307 uses the word hurt which has been explained in Section 31, IPC and not "grievous hurt" within the meaning of Section 320, IPC. Therefore, in order to attract Section 307, the injury need not be on the vital part of the body. A gun shot, as in the present case, may miss the vital part of the body, may result in a lacerated wound, that itself is sufficient to attract Section 307. High Court is, therefore, in error in reducing the sentence, holding that the injury was not on the vital part of the body. Period undergone by way of sentence also in our view is not commensurate with the guilt established."

6. In view of the facts of aforesaid case, it was held that use of firearm in itself is sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC and it does not absolve a person under Section 307 IPC just because no injury was caused. It is further held that kind of injury in itself is also not sufficient to discard the offence under Section 307 IPC. Intention was an importance ingredient for attracting the offence under Section 307 IPC.

7. In the present case, the situation was entirely opposite. The accused was armed with pistol. They were stated to be carrying a pistol in their pocket. Still, they did not use the same which shows that they had no intention to kill. Further, two persons stated to be armed with deadly weapons were hitting the petitioner but still only four grievous injuries were cause on non-vital parts which further shows that there was no such intention. Moreover, admittedly, they ran away from the spot after seeing two truck arriving.

8. As per the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Shoraj Singh Ahlawat and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2012 AIR SCW 6171 , at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record and only the material produced on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.

9. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Shoraj Singh Ahlawat (supra) while holding that strong suspicion was also sufficient to frame charge, took into consideration the legal position summed up by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. (17) 3 SCC 4 : (AIR 17 SC 366) which was as under:-