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.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, J. - Instant Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved from order dated 20.7.2023 in Sessions case No. 57/2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kekri, District Ajmer, Whereby charge under Sections 34 1, 323, 324 & 304/34 IPC were framed against the petitioners.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners while relying upon judgment of this Court in cases of Brahmanand & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1970 (Raj.) 220, Shambhudayal & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1035/2021 on 30.9.2022, Magha Ram Meghwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 (3) Cri.LR (Raj) 1352 and Mohammad Salman @ Sukz @ Kabootar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 408/2023 on 08.05.2023 submitted that FIR was registered on 24.6.2022, which indicate: that all of a sudden a fight erupted between two neighbors resulting in injuries on complainant-Bhag Chand. He further submitted that injured was medical examined on 24.6.2022, wherein injury No. 1 was allegedly caused by sharp weapon but on 30.6.2022, medical jurist specifically opined that this injurys simple in nature and not dangerous to life. He further submitted that even fro-the statement of witnesses, no charge under Section 307 IPC was established, He further referred the material on record to submit that learned Trial Court acted a Post Office and framed the charge without application of mind.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for respondent/complainant.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that after investigation, Police has forwarded charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC and if charge is not proved then petitioners may be acquitted from aforesaid charge.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record and the judgments submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners.

6. A perusal of injury report of injured Bhag Chand indicated that injury No. 1 was caused on frontal region to vertex and sized about 12cm X 3cm X Bone deep and same was caused by sharp weapon but since it was not a fracture so termed as simple. Further, Medical Officer opined that the same was not dangerous to life.

7. The matter has arisen out of oral statement (Parcha Bayan) of Bhag Chand recorded at 9.15 AM on 24.6.2022, wherein, he alleged that in his agricultural eld the petitioners were harvesting through tractor and when stopped on the basis of stay, Durga Shanker and Sajjan assaulted with stick and axe. Thereafter, Rajendra also joined and he also indulged in assault. In this Parcha Baya, no intention was alleged to attract Section 307 IPC. Bhag Chand was examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 25.6.2022, therein he stated that all the three petitioners with common intention to kill him assaulted with stick and axe resulting in grievous injuries and he was rescued by Anil and Guman. Guman was also examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein, he stated that injured was saving a sword and he was assaulted by three petitioners. Anil Bairwa was also examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therein, he also supported the version of Guman but he stated that firstly, Bhag Chadn assaulted Sajjan and then this witness Anil Kumar picked up pipe but thereafter, the three petitioners assaulted injured-Bhag Chand.

8. Record further revealed that a cross FIR was also registered by petitioner-Durga Shanker against Bhag Chand and same is also a part of the record.

9. We have gone through the material available on record and also the order passed by l