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.

Order :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. These criminal revision petitions under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C have been preferred by the accused-petitioners for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi (Raj) (for short the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.141/2020 titled ‘State v. Sattu @ Satyanarayan and Ors.’, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners and prayer to discharge them from the charges leveled against them for offences under Sections 148 , 341, 323 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 IPC has been made.

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court are that; on 07.06.2020, the complainant, Pappu Lal and his nephew Tolachand, were coming back to their village after visiting Ambarani Mataji Dhaneshwar. On their way, right before Dora village, the accused-petitioners, Sattu, Devlal, Rajaram, Nandkishore, Jagdish and Shyopal suddenly got in their way and stopped them. The accused-petitioners hit the complainant on his head, both arms and both legs. They continued to beat him up even after he fell down on the ground, due to which he injured his left eye and nose. When some people, passing by, tried to rescue the complainant and his nephew, the accused-petitioners ran away. On the basis of the parcha bayan of complainant, Pappu Lal, an FIR No. 91/2020 was lodged at Police Station, Dabi.

3. Upon investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet u/s 148, 341, 323 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 IPC before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges for the said offences vide order dated 27.03.2023. Therefore, aggrieved by the framing of charge order dated 27.03.2023, the accused-petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition.

4. Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submits that the present case is one of falsity and over implication wherein the nature of allegations leveled in the FIR, Section 161 Cr.P.C statements and opinion of the medical jurist are quite different in respect of the nature of injuries. The counsel further submits that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the evidence related to the medical opinion is biased and incorrect in the absence of the Medical Board. He further submits that the medical examination of the complainant was conducted with a delay of 10 days. He further submits that the case of prosecution is at best that of Section 323 and 325 IPC. For these reasons, the Counsel submits that the trial Court has erroneously framed the charge of Section 307 and the impugned order is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the aforementioned submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the learned trial Court below, after taking into due consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case and after considering the evidence placed on record before it, has rightly passed the impugned order and further submits that the charges so framed are duly made out against the revisionist-petitioners, which requires no interference by this Court.

6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the order under challenge as well as the charge-sheet concerned and other relevant records placed before this Court.

7. It will be befitting to say that when an act is done by a person, it is presumed that he must have been aware that