Back
FARJAND ALI
Jassu Khan – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition, challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.46/2016 whereby the learned trial Court has directed to frame charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 447 /34. 341/34, 323/34 and 307/34 of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the facts and circumstances of the case, apparently no case for framing charges under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioners, as neither there was any intent of the petitioners to kill the victim, nor the injuries caused the victims are such so as to bring the matter within the ambit of Section 307 of the IPC. Learned counsel further submits that he does not object to the framing of other charges as directed by the learned trial Court.
3. The office report dated 23.07.2019 reflects that the notice upon the respondent No.2 has been duly served, however, no-one is putting appearance on his behalf since inception.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate vehemently and fervently opposed the submissi
Intent to kill is essential for Section 307 IPC; mere infliction of injury does not establish attempted murder without clear evidence of intent.
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.
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....
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 clarified that mere injuries do not justify Section 307 IPC charges without evident homicidal intent, emphasizing strict interpretation of criminal law concerning bodily 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.
The court clarified that to sustain a charge under section 307 IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate intent to kill, which cannot be inferred solely based on the nature of the injury inflicted.
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.
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
