Framing charges under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent or knowledge to kill, which was lacking, thereby limiting the charges to less serious offences.

Order :

SANDEEP SHAH, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 10.10.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No.117/2022 “State v. Jaishankar Sharma & Ors” whereby the learned trial Court has proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 341, 323, 336 and 307 IPC.

Facts of the case:-

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that, based upon the statement given by one Mustak, son of Zakir Silawat, an FIR No.197/2022 of Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bhilwara, came to be lodged on 29.04.2022. As per the contents of the FIR and the statement given by Mustak, on 29.04.2022, at around 01:30 AM, complainant-Mustak, his brother Shamir and his friend Avesh were travelling on a motorcycle from Krishna Hospital towards Bagar Hospital, when they saw at the cross-road that 15-20 persons were assaulting 2-3 personss who, were the residents of Maruti Colony. He stated that he was going towards Gulnagri and these 15-20 people stopped him and started assaulting him with stick and stones upon his head and left leg and shoulders. He stated that certain other persons disentangled them and, in the meanwhile, Rehan, resident of Maruti Nagar, along with his friends came to the site, upon which, 15-20 people started assaulting him also. The police after investigation, recorded statement of injured Mustak Silawat, Mohammad Avesh, Mohammad Rehan, Sameer Silawat, Rehan Silawat, Sahid Nilgar, Shahrukh Silawat, Mohammad Sadab and Ayan Rangrej. All the witnesses stated that they were not aware as who had assaulted Mustak, however, they stated that they later came to know that the persons, who assaulted were the present petitioners, along with few other persons. However, nobody was examined to show how the witnesses came to know as to who all were the persons who assaulted them. The injury report was prepared, as far as injury upon Mustak and Rehan was concerned. A recovery of a lathi was made from petitioner no.1-Jayshankar, based upon his information given under Section 27 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. The police officials thereafter, proceeded to file the charge- sheet against the present petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 143 , 341, 323, 336 and 307 IPC. The learned trial Court, after committal of case, proceeded to frame the charges against the present petitioners for the offences as specified above, and therefore, being aggrieved against the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

Arguments of the counsels for petitioners and respondents:-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even if, all the averments made in the FIR, as well as the statements of the witnesses are admitted to be correct as it is, then too, the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the present petitioners. He submitted that a perusal of the statements of all the witnesses will reveal that none of them have named any of the petitioners and has simply stated that they were not aware as to who had committed the offence and were rather informed by somebody else that the petitioners had committed the offence. He further asserts that not a single witness has identified the petitioners, and neither any witness was produced to show as to how the petitioners were identified as the assailants. He further submitted that the only recovery made from the petitioners was one lathi, which was shown to have been recovered from Jaishankar. He submitted th