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 and knowledge under Section 307 IPC.

ORDER :

Sandeep Shah, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharsana, in Sessions Case No.45/2020 “State v. Makbul Kha & Ors” whereby the learned trial Court has proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 148 , 307, 342, 323, 325, 326 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC.

Facts of the case:-

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 188/2020 dated 14.09.2020 was lodged at Police Station Rawla, District Ganganagar. As per the FIR, the complainant- Om Prakash, stated that a few days prior, an incident occurred wherein members of the Muslim community tied a horse to a tree and assaulted him with an iron pipe, even inserting the pipe into his nose. He submitted that he had lodged a complaint at Police Station Rawla, upon which the police and State administration arrived at the site, released the horse, and a settlement was arrived at between the parties. He submitted that the accused were having enmity because of incident in question and that on 14.09.2020, at around 03:00 AM, his son Pawan Kumar, along with his cousins namely Nirmal, Vikram, and Sunil, wereheading to the field for cultivation when the accused petitioners (specifically named in the FIR) arrived armed with sharp and blunt weapons and assaulted Pawan Kumar, Vikram, and Sunil. Upon learning of the incident, the injured were rushed to the hospital and subsequently referred to a higher medical center. Based on the FIR, the police initiated an investigation and recorded the statements of various witnesses, including the injured—Pawan, Sunil, Vikram and the complainant, Om Prakash as well as Nirmal, Akshay Kumar, and others. The injury report was prepared, and the opinion of the Medical Officer was obtained. Subsequently, post arrest of the petitioners, based upon information divulged under Section 27 of the EVIDENCE ACT , various articles were recovered: a lathi from Makbul Kha, a piece of cable from Rustam Kha, a lathi from Mustak Kha, a gandasi from Barkat, a lathi from Jakir Kha, an iron pipe from Farukh Kha, a lathi from Mohammad Noor, and a torch and piece of cable from Shyokat Kha. Thereafter, the site plan was prepared and thereafter police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitoners for the offences punishable under Sections 148 , 307, 342, 323, 325, 326 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC. Post committal of case the cognizance of offences was taken by the learned court below and thereafter, the charges were framed for the offences as stated supra. Being aggrieved of the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners, with no specific allegation attributed to any individual. He further submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, therefore, there was no question of commission of the alleged offence by the petitioners and they have been falsely implicated. He also submits that the nature and location of the injuries clearly indicate that there was neither intention nor knowledge to commit murder, and hence, the charge under Section 307 of the IPC is not sustainable. He, therefore, prays for allowing the revision petition and quashing the charges levelled against the petitioners.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision petition and submits that the manner in which the petitioners used weapons, as well as the