Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Bhalla Ram S/o Farsa Ram and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 657 & 658 OF 2023
Decided On : 17-01-2024
IPC - Offence under Sections 332, 336, 353, 307/34 IPC and Section 50C/177, 100(2)/177 of Central Motor Vehicles Act - Section 307 of IPC, Section 228 Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order framing charges for various offences including Section 307 IPC. The petitioner argued that no serious injury was caused to the complainant and therefore, the charge under Section 307 IPC was not justified.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the intention or knowledge relating to the commission of murder and the doing of an act towards it are the two essential ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The court concluded that since these two ingredients were missing, the trial court had committed an error in framing the charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court had erred in framing the charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC based on the facts and evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal provisions and precedents to establish that the intention or knowledge relating to the commission of murder and the doing of an act towards it are essential for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The court also emphasized that the nature of the act and the circumstances must be considered to establish the intention or knowledge.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were partly allowed, and the order framing charges for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC was set aside. The case was directed to be transferred to the concerned judicial magistrate for trial in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :
1. Revision petition No. 657/2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 32/23 whereby, the learned court below framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 332, 336, 353, 307/34 IPC and Section 50C/177, 100(2)/177 of Central Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Revision Petition No. 658/2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 32/23 whereby, the learned court below framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 332, 336, 353, 307/34 IPC and Section 50C/177, 100(2)/177 of Central Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Sharwan Singh filed a written report before the SHO, Police Station, Transport Nagar, Pali stating therein that on 04.08.2022, he received an information from Police Control room to stop a Bolero Camper vehicle being driven at a high speed. Accordingly, a police barricade was laid and the driver of the vehicle was signalled to stop, but the driver with an intention to kill the team members, tried to run over and hit the barricade.
4. On this report, the police registered a case and started investigation. After due investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioners. Thereafter, the case was committed for trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur where the learned trial court framed the charges against the present petitioner for the offence mentioned above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioner as the complainant did not receive any grievous injury on any vital parts. As per the statement of the complainant, an attempt was made by the petitioner but no serious injury was received by the complainant. It is argued that petitioner Ashok Kumar was driving the vehicle and other co-accused were sitting besides him in the vehicle. As per injury reports of the injured, only pain has been mentioned in the body of injured, therefore, the trial court has committed an error in framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner ran over the blockade and wanted to cause bodily injury to the complainant, therefore, the trial court has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC and all other questions raised with regard to the present case are to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. Further it is settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of powers conferred under Section 397 Cr.P.C is very limited.
7. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. From the perusal of documents on record, it is evident from the injury reports of the injured that no grievous injuries have been caused to the injured. The injured Pramod Kumar and Rakesh Kumar had pain in the body and received simple injuries. As per the statement of the witnesses, the accused although wanted to inflict injury upon the complainant but no injury was received by the complainant.
9. Section 307 of the IPC titled as "Attempt to murder" reads as follows :-
10. Section 307 of IPC, requires the commission of an overt act with intention or knowledge that if his act had caused death it would amount to murder. The second pa
The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC are the intention or knowledge relating to the commission of murder and the doing of an act towards it. The nature of the act and the ci....
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....
The court affirmed that for Section 307 IPC, causing hurt with intent or knowledge is sufficient, and the trial court must assess evidence to determine if charges are warranted.
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.
Charges under Section 307 IPC were improperly framed as the injuries were not grievous; the court directed charges under Section 308 IPC instead.
For framing charges under Section 307 IPC, intention and knowledge are crucial, and a prima facie case must be established based on the injuries and circumstances surrounding the incident.
The requirement of intention is crucial in establishing liability under Section 307 IPC, distinguishing it from lesser charges.
A charge under section 307 cannot be sustained when the evidence fails to establish intent to kill, affirming a need to assess injuries and circumstances carefully.
For charges under IPC Section 307, mere injuries perceived as simple do not absolve the accused; intent demonstrated through acts suffices, even without grievous harm.
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
