MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Dinesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No. 2, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 02/2023 pertaining to FIR No. 129/2021 of Police Station Muklawa, District Sriganganagar whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 325/34, 447/34 & 341 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are cross cases between the parties and injured Subhash and Ramchander each received only two injuries in all. According to injury report of Ramchander, he received injury on his left knee which is non-vital part of his body and another one is simple in nature. As per injury report of Subhash, he received two injuries out of which, injury No. 1 is found to be grievous in nature that is on skull and temporal region. Counsel further argued that there was free fight between the parties and there was no repetition of blows, therefore, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Counsel submitted that previously the doctor opined that none of the injuries
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 trial court must thoroughly evaluate evidence before framing charges, as mechanical adoption of prosecution's stance is inappropriate.
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.