Back
FARJAND ALI
Samane Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER
1. The instant Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the accused petitioners challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer in Sessions Case No.142/2022, whereby the learned trial Court has directed framing of charges against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 427 & 307 r.w. Section 149 of the IPC.
2. Bereft of elaborated details, the brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that on 01.07.2022, at the instance of the complainant Roje Khan an FIR No.150/2022 was lodged at the police station Shiv, District Barmer alleging therein that on the day of incident, in the morning at 6:00 a.m. when he went to drop his brothers Fatan Khan and Ishan Khan at the Sarhad Gunga bus stand, an assault was made over them by the accused persons who were there in a lurking position. As per the FIR, the petitioners, who were eight in numbers, were yielded with iron rod and ropes. They brutally beaten his brothers Fatan Khan and Ishan Khan and broke down the wind screen of the taxi. The victims were evacuated to Shiv H
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.
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....
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 cannot be framed without clear evidence demonstrating common intention to kill, emphasizing the need for careful assessment of material at the charge stage.
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.
The court clarified that mere injuries do not justify Section 307 IPC charges without evident homicidal intent, emphasizing strict interpretation of criminal law concerning bodily harm.
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.
The court established that for a charge under Section 307 IPC to be sustained, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not present in this case due to the nature of injuries and the....
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.
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
