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.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed against the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Hindaun City, District Karauli in Sessions Case No.27/2020, whereby, the charges have been ordered to be framed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 341, 323, 364 and 307 read with 34 of IPC.

It has been submitted that the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 and the consequent charges framed against the petitioners, are illegal, improper and not sustainable being contrary to the facts and the material available on record. The learned trial Court has overlooked the medical reports available on record, which would reveal that the injuries sustained by the injured, were neither opined to be dangerous to life nor sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The material available on record is not sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of Section 307 of IPC. The learned trial Court has failed to consider and to appreciate the material available on record. There was no evidence to frame charges under Section 307 of IPC because there was no material to show that the injuries in question were caused with the intention or knowledge as required to constitute an offence under Section 307 of IPC. However, the evidence of the prosecution is taken as such, there is no likelihood of the accused-petitioners being convicted for the offence under Sections 364/34 and 307/34 of IPC. Indisputably, the injured Sher Singh is brother-in-law of petitioners No.l and 2 and there was no intention to cause death of the injured Sher Singh. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 364 and 307 of IPC, are completely missing in the facts of the present case. Hence, it is prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the learned trial Court, framing the charges against the petitioners, may be quashed to the extent of charges under Sections 307/34 and 364/34 and they may be ordered to be discharged accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the evidence available on record including the FIR, statement of injured Sher Singh recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, injury report and X-ray report of injured Sher Singh and other medical record available on the file, and has submitted that even if the case of prosecution is taken to as a whole, charges under Sections 364 and 307 of IPC, cannot be legally sustained. The prosecution has not produced any evidence on record to suggest or to prove that the injuries were caused with intention or knowledge of causing death to the injured Sher Singh. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments :-

(i) Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2021 SC 2351

(ii) Champa Lai Dhakar v. Naval Singh Rajput (2019) 4 SCC 146

(iii) Kalu Ram @ Dharmendra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 92/2013 decided on 13.12.2013]

(iv) Harsh Dan v. State of Rajasthan [SB Criminal Revision No. 484/2018 decided on 01.05.2018]

(v) Deepak and ors. v. State of Rajasthan [SB Criminal Revision No. 1157/2016 decided on 03.10.2016]

(vi) Hah ram and ors. v. State of Rajasthan [SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 408/2019 decided on 25.04.2019]

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that the order framing the charges against the petitioners, is legal, looking to the material available on record. As per the injury report of injured Sher Singh, total 15 injuries were described, out of which, injuries No.2,4,5,6 and 7 were described as grievous. The injured sustained several fractures on his body including fracture on second rib, right tibia and fibula, left tibia and fibula, right humerus lower-end with surgical intervention. It is further submitted that the injured remained hospitalized for more than 20 days and as per the opin