Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
Paras Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLR / 660 / 2024
Decided On : 17-03-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 325, and 307 - Revision petition against framing of charges - The petitioner contended that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple and not grievous, questioning the charge under Section 307 IPC - The trial court's charge framing was deemed illegal as it did not consider the nature of injuries properly - The court directed the framing of charges under Section 308 IPC instead. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 7)
(B) Charge Framing - The court emphasized that meticulous examination of evidence is not necessary at the charge framing stage, but the nature of injuries must be considered. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order framing charges under Sections 323, 325, and 307 IPC, arguing that the injuries were simple and not grievous. The petitioner also sustained simple injuries during the incident.
Findings of Court:
The charge under Section 307 IPC was quashed and replaced with Section 308 IPC; other charges remained unchanged.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the injuries justified a charge under Section 307 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the trial court's decision was not supported by the injury report, leading to the conclusion that a charge under Section 307 IPC was inappropriate.
Result: The order framing charge under Section 307 IPC was set aside, and the charge was directed to be framed under Section 308 IPC.
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 petitioner and submits that at the time of framing charge, meticulous examination of evidence is not necessary. The impugned order of framing charge is perfectly justified and requires no interference from this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order of framing charge.
6. According to the statement of injured Heer Singh, the accused-petitioner tried to ran over the motorcycle upon him and due to which he received injuries and according to the injury report of injured Heer Singh, none of the injuries is found to be grievous in nature. Thus, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the petitioner. At the most, the case may not travel beyond the offence under Section 308 IPC . But, the learned trial court did not properly consider the injury report of the injured Heer Singh and has framed the charge under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner, which is apparently illegal and thus, the impugned order to the extent of framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC to be quashed and set aside.
7. Hence, the order impugned dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside to the extent of framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC and the trial court is directed to frame the charge for offence under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC against the petitioner. The other charges framed by the trial court shall remain intact.
8. The instant revision petition stands disposed of. Stay application is also decided.
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.
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
