Back
SANDEEP MEHTA
Trilok Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners for assailing the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra in Sessions Case No.23/2017, whereby charges were framed against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 325/34 and 354/34 IPC.
2. The main grievance of the petitioners in this revision is regarding the charge under Section 308 IPC. In this regard, Mr. S.D. Goswami, learned counsel representing the petitioners, drew the court's attention to the following conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer in the charge-sheet :-
3. It may be mentioned herein that the Investigating Officer found only the two petitioners involved in the offences and the other persons named by the complainant in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses were exonerated. The complainant filed an application under Section 193 CrPC, which was dismissed. However, qua the petitioners, the learned trial court proceeded to frame charges as above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the injuries inflicted to injured Raju Singh were on the hands. Even though such injuries were grievous, apparently, the ingr
The court established that intent to commit culpable homicide must be clearly evidenced by the nature of injuries, which was not the case here.
At the charge framing stage, only prima facie evidence is required, and strong suspicion suffices to proceed against the accused.
Point of law: Criminal Law - Culpable homicide – Framing of charges - act done by the accused with intention or knowledge that under such circumstances death could have been caused or not - Whether ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases involving Section 308 IPC.
Criminal Law – Offence of Attempt to commit culpable Homicide - Revision petition – Whether accused had intention or knowledge that injuries inflicted on the victim would cause death and as a result ....
Intent or knowledge of the accused is essential for framing charges under Section 308 IPC, irrespective of the injury's severity.
Accused cannot maintain application under Section 128(1)(a), Cr.P.C. for transferring case from Court of Sessions to a Court of Magistrate on the ground that no offence under Section 308, I.P.C. is m....
The trial court must thoroughly evaluate evidence before framing charges, as mechanical adoption of prosecution's stance is inappropriate.
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.
It is settled position that number of injuries or nature of injuries are not sole factor to decide upon whether any and if so what offence affecting human body is made out.
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
