HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
Paras Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
1. The instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C . has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in Session Case No.15/2023 whereby the learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 323, 325 , 307 IPC .
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the injury reports of injured Heer Singh, he received simple injuries, mostly on his non-vital part of the body and none of the injuries received by the injured Heer Singh is grievous in nature. Counsel submits that in the incident, the petitioner also received injuries, which are simple in nature. Thus, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the petitioner. Yet, the trial court framed the charge for offence under Section 307 IPC . Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order to the extent of framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner being per se illegal may be quashed and set aside.
3. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petiti
Charges under Section 307 IPC were improperly framed as the injuries were not grievous; the court directed charges under Section 308 IPC instead.
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.
At the charge framing stage, only prima facie evidence is required, and strong suspicion suffices to proceed against the accused.
The trial court must thoroughly evaluate evidence before framing charges, as mechanical adoption of prosecution's stance is inappropriate.
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.
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.
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.
The court determined that charges must align with the severity of injuries, ruling that attempted murder charges were inappropriate given the medical 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.
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.