MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Ram Singh Meena – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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 materi
Champa Lai Dhakar vs. Naval Singh Rajput (2019) 4 SCC 146
Sanjay Kumar Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2021 SC 2351
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Saleem @ Chamaru (2005) 5 SCC 554
Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samai & Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4
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.
At the charge framing stage, the court only needs to establish a prima facie case indicating the accused might have committed the offence, without delving into the sufficiency of evidence.
Charges under Section 307 IPC were improperly framed as the injuries were not grievous; the court directed charges under Section 308 IPC instead.
Intent and knowledge regarding the commission of offences under Section 307 IPC can be inferred from actions and circumstances, regardless of the nature or extent of actual injuries inflicted.
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.
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.
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 trial court must thoroughly evaluate evidence before framing charges, as mechanical adoption of prosecution's stance is inappropriate.
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....
Intent to kill is essential for Section 307 IPC; mere infliction of injury does not establish attempted murder without clear evidence of intent.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.