Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
ABDUL RAJJAK @ RAJA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C . against the orders dated 04.08.2022, 04.11.2022 and 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh by which the learned trial court has framed the charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341/149, 307/149 and 427/149 IPC .
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the FIR, all the four accused persons caused injuries to Shahrukh. As per statement of Shahrukh, the first injury was inflicted by accused Rehan who hit him on his head and another injury was caused on his arm. Even, according to the injury report of injured Shahrukh, he received total five injuries including fracture of Ulna bone and injury no.1 was found to be grievous in nature but the doctor opined that the said injury was not dangerous to life. All other injuries were found to be simple in nature. In such circumstances, the charge framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 307/149 IPC is bad in the eye of law. Counsel submits that at the most the offence may not travel beyond 325 IPC .
3. Per contra, learne
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, 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.
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.
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 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 trial court must thoroughly evaluate evidence before framing charges, as mechanical adoption of prosecution's stance is inappropriate.
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.
Charges under Section 307 IPC were improperly framed as the injuries were not grievous; the court directed charges under Section 308 IPC instead.
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
