The court determined that charges must align with the severity of injuries, ruling that attempted murder charges were inappropriate given the medical evidence.

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, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant submit that the injured Shahrukh received five injuries in all, out of which one injury was on head and another on his arm which was grievous in nature. In these circumstances, the charge framed against the petitioner is perfectly justified and the revision filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case.

5. The injured Shahrukh in his statement has deposed that he received five injuries in all, out of which one injury on his forearm was found to be grievous in nature but the doctor has opined that the said injury was not dangerous to his life. All other injuries have been found to be simple in nature.

6. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 307 & 308 IPC which reads as under :-

“307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to (imprisonment for life), or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. “

7. The medical evidence does not state that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the statement of prosecution witnesses including the medical report, I do not find any case to have been made out against the accused petitioner under Section 307 IPC , rather the case under Section 325 IPC is made out in this matter.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the charge framed by the trial court for offence under Section 307/149 IPC against the petitioner is bad in the eye of law. Instead of offence under Section 307/149 IPC , the trial court ought to have framed the charge against the petitioners for offence under Section 325/149 IPC . The rest of the charges framed by the trial court is not required to be interfered with. The trial court is directed to re-frame the charges against the petitioner.

9. With this modification, the revision petition is partly allowed.

10. Stay application is also decided.