Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.
MAHENDRA KUMAR S/O SHRI BHANWARLAL - Appellant
Versus
MAHIPAL S/O SHRI BHANWARLAL - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1188 of 2016
Decided on : 10-08-2017
For the Appellant :Mukesh Mehriya, Advocate
For the Respondent:R K Bohra, Advocate
The court upheld the charges under Section 308 I.P.C. based on the nature of injuries and the weapons used.
Headnote:
Section 308 I.P.C. - Revision Petition - The court considered the injuries inflicted, the part of the body where injury is caused, and the weapon used to determine the offense under Section 308 I.P.C. Charges under Section 308 I.P.C. were upheld based on the nature of injuries and the weapons used.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged under section 341, 323, 324, 325 336 and 308 I.P.C. The petitioners argued that the offense under Section 308 I.P.C. was not made out and that the charges under Section 120-B had not been framed.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the injuries and the statement of the injured. It upheld the charges under Section 308 I.P.C. based on the nature of injuries and the weapons used. The court also noted that the fact that all the petitioners armed with weapons attacked the injured and caused seven injuries, including two injuries on the head by a sharp weapon.
Issues: The issues included whether the offense under Section 308 I.P.C. was made out, and whether the charges under Section 120-B had been framed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of injuries, the part of the body where injury is caused, and the weapon used to determine the offense under Section 308 I.P.C. The court also noted that the fact that all the petitioners armed with weapons attacked the injured and caused seven injuries, including two injuries on the head by a sharp weapon.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the charges under Section 308 I.P.C. were upheld.
PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.
1. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 24.06.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Nagaur vide which the petitioners have been charged under section 341, 323, 324, 325 336 and 308 I.P.C.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. It is also contended that the weapons are shown to have been recovered after three months of the incident from the incident site. Whereas, as per the site plan, no incriminating material or object was available when the site plan was prepared. It is also contended that the injuries are all simple in nature and Section 308 I.P.C. is not made out. Other limb of argument is that the charges under Section 120-B have not been framed and the common intention is missing.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on "Ram Kesh Maurya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Basant Prajapati, 2007 4 ADJ 418", "Mahesh and Ors vs. State of M.P., 1988 CrLJ 1565" , "Mannoo Lal Yadav and Anr. vs. State of U.P., 1994 AWC 629" and "Virendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008 CrLR 1249"
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the injured in his statement has specifically stated that when the injured was going from his house towards the Bada then the accused-petitioners armed with Barchi, Hockey, Stick and Bhala attacked the complainant.
5. It is contended that the complainant has received as many as seven injuries out of which two are incised wound on head which has been caused by sharp weapon. It is also contended that the petitioners had knowledge that death could be caused by their act as they have inflicted injuries on vital part of the body by a sharp weapon.
6. I have considered the contentions and have perused the injury report as well as the statement of the injured.
7. "Virendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr." was a case, where the injuries were found on right leg, left leg, upper arm and upper forearm. Three injuries were grievous in nature. Injuries were not on vital part of the body. The Court held that offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is not made out.
8. In "Ram Kesh Maurya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Basant Prajapati", the injuries sustained were simple in nature. The injuries were on head but there was no fracture on the skull bone and as there was no x-ray report. It was presumed that the doctor did not consider it necessary to advise x-ray. The Court in those circumstances quashed the charges under Section 308 I.P.C.
9. In "Mahesh and Ors vs. State of M.P.", the Court held that in order to constitute a crime under section 307 I.P.C actus reus and the requisite mens rea both must concur. Hurt is not an ingredient of the said offence but in a given case its existence may assume importance. The Court in that case quashed the charges under Section 308 I.P.C.
10. In the present case in hand, the petitioners armed with weapons including sharp weapons attacked the injured while he was on his way from his house to the bada. As many as seven injuries were inflicted on the injured, two were on vital part of the body and were caused by sharp weapon.
11. For constituting offence under Section 308 I.P.C, if any act is done with intention or knowledge and under such circumstance that, if by that act death is caused the person causing the injury would be guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. At the stage of charges, the Court is required to consider the statement of the witnesses as well as the injury report, the part of the body where injury is caused as well as the weapon used for arriving at the just conclusion as to which offence is made out.
12. It is true that the Court has not charged the petitioners for offence under Section 120-B Cr.P.C. but the fact that all the petitioners armed with weapons attacked the injured and caused seven injuries to him including two injuries
