Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
KHALIL MOHAMMAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLR / 27 / 2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 341/149, 323/149, 325/149, and 307/149 - Criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges against the petitioners for various offences including attempt to murder - The trial court's order was upheld as there was no illegality or perversity found in the framing of charges based on the injuries sustained by the victims. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The scope of revision under Sections 397 and 401 is limited to examining the legality of the order passed by the lower court, not to reassess the evidence. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the order framing charges for offences under IPC sections, arguing that the allegations were omnibus and the injuries were not severe enough to warrant such charges.
Findings of Court:
The court found that prima facie, the charges under Section 307 were justified based on the nature of injuries sustained by the victims.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's order framing charges was illegal or perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in framing charges, as the nature of injuries indicated a serious offence.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Judgment :
1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. (Section 438/442 BNSS) by the petitioners against the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Session Judge, Gangapur, District Bhilwara whereby the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 148, 341/149, 323/149, 325/149 and 307/149 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the statement of injured, an omnibus allegation has been levelled against the petitioners for causing injuries. Counsel further submits that three persons, namely Babu, Aslam and Belu got injuries and according to the injury reports of aforementioned three persons, injured Babu suffered simple injuries by blunt force on his arms and legs, whereas injured Aslam sustained a simple injury on his head by blunt force. Similarly injured Belu sustained three injuries, out of which two injuries (one on his chest and the other on his arm) are grievous in nature and dangerous to life. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order of framing charge being per se illegal deserves to be quashed and set.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order passed by the trial court.
5. It is the admitted fact that three persons, namely Babu, Aslam and Belu, got injured in this case. According to the X-Ray reports, injured Babu suffered simple injuries by blunt force on his arms and legs, whereas injured Aslam sustained a simple injury on his head by blunt force. Similarly injured Belu sustained three injuries which are on his chest and there are fractures on his 8th 9th and 10th ribs on the left side which are on his vital parts of the body.
6. In view of the above, prima facie it appears that offence under Section 307 is clearly made out and the trial court has rightly framed charges against the present petitioners for the aforesaid offences. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order of framing charge.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
8. Stay application also stands dismissed.
The court upheld the trial court's framing of charges under IPC, affirming that the nature of injuries justified the charges without finding any illegality or perversity.
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.
The court determined that charges must align with the severity of injuries, ruling that attempted murder charges were inappropriate given the medical evidence.
At the charge-framing stage, only prima facie evidence is required, and strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed against the accused.
The trial court must thoroughly evaluate evidence before framing charges, as mechanical adoption of prosecution's stance is inappropriate.
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.
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.
A charge under section 307 cannot be sustained when the evidence fails to establish intent to kill, affirming a need to assess injuries and circumstances carefully.
At the charge framing stage, only prima facie evidence is required, and strong suspicion suffices to proceed against the accused.
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
