RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Farjand Ali, J.
Samane Khan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 128 of 2023
Decided On : 10-05-2023
Criminal - IPC - Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 427, 307 r.w. 149 - The court analyzed the intent required for Section 307, clarifying that mere infliction of injury does not suffice for attempted murder; intent must be inferred from circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The accused petitioners challenged the framing of charges for multiple IPC offenses, including attempted murder, following an alleged assault on the complainant's brothers, resulting in injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to support the charge of attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, determining that the accused lacked the intent to kill, despite the use of weapons.
Issues: Whether the framing of charges under Section 307 IPC was justified based on the circumstances and injuries sustained by the victims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that intent to kill is a prerequisite for Section 307 IPC, which must be inferred from the circumstances, and mere injuries do not establish such intent.
Result: The revision petition is partly allowed; the charge under Section 307 IPC is quashed, while other charges are maintained.
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 Hospital wherefrom they were referred to Govt. Hospital, Barmer. It was alleged that the said assault was made by the accusedpetitioners with an intent to kill his brothers. The accused persons were arrested and after usual investigation, charge sheet came to be submitted against them for the offences mentioned above in the court concerned. After taking cognizance of the offences enumerated, the matter was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial Court') for further proceedings. Vide impugned order dated 23.11.2022, the learned trial Court directed to frame charges against the petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 427, 307 r.w. Section 149 of the IPC. The said order is under assail before this Court by way of filing the instant revision petition.
3. Shri Siddharth Karwarsara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that neither the circumstances of the case nor the injuries allegedly sustained by the victims bring the matter within the ambit and scope of Section 307 of the IPC and yet framing of the charge for the above offence was not in accordance of law, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Priyanka Borana appearing for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondentcomplainant. Perused the material available on record.
6. After careful scanning of the material available on record, it is observed by this Court that it is an admitted fact situation that there was no previous animosity between the parties though, there may have some discord between them but the same was not so serious in nature for that the accused-petitioners would think to commit murder of the victims. From perusal of the circumstances of the case, it can be presumed at the best that the petitioners wanted to hurt the victims or to chastise them or to harm them physically or frighten them but from no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that the intent of the accused-petitioners was to kill the victims and for that purpose they made an attempt upon them.
7. The Penal law has defined and categorized different acts of the accused with distinct quantum of punishment. Voluntarily causing simple hurt; causing voluntarily simple hurt by using a dangerous weapon or means; voluntarily causing grievous hurt; which has further been clarified by a different provision under Section 326 of the IPC with the definition of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon and means. Causing
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.
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.