IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Shah
Ramchandra S/o Hajari Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
ORDER :
Sandeep Shah, J.
1. In the present revision petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur, in Sessions Case No.02/2024 (State vs. Suresh & Anr.), whereby charges were framed against petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 34 1, 323, 325/34 & 307/34 of IPC.
2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that based upon a written report submitted by the complainant - Suresh, an FIR came to be lodged against the present petitioners on 12.10.2023 at Police Station Mundwa, District Nagaur, bearing no.184/2023. In the complaint in question, the complainant - Suresh stated that on 11.10.2023 at around 06:30 PM his real brother- Manohar Lal S/o Ramchandra, aged 20 years, and his cousin brother (uncle’s son)- Mahendra S/o Ramuram, aged 24 years, were on their way to search the buffaloes and reached the road from Badi Nadi to Kharda, where Ramchandra S/o Hajari Ram, Ramkishore S/o Ramchandra, Suresh S/o Ramchandra, wife of Ramchandra and 10-15 persons stopped them and started assaulting them by axe, knife, iron rods and lathis. Post assaulting them, Mahendra was dragged by a tractor and was seriously injured
Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar
Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors.
Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra
Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors.
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.
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.
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.
At the stage of framing charges, only prima facie evidence is required, and strong suspicion is enough to frame charges. The court referred to various legal principles and precedents to support its d....
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....
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.
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.
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 intention or knowledge of an accused under Section 308 IPC has to be ascertained only prima facie at the stage of charge, based on the injury caused to the victim.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.