No prima facie case for framing charges under IPC 307 absent life-endangering intention on non-vital injuries; SC/ST Act inapplicable sans public-heard caste slurs, corroboration, amid rivalry and FIR omission.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. The instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Case No. 5-S/7 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. vs. Ishwar Thakur & Ors., whereby the afore Court while rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners (hereinafter, “accused”) for their discharge, proceeded to frame charges against them for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (s), 2(va) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter ‘Act’).

2. Precisely the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Shri Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Advocate representing the accused is that the Court below while framing charge under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(s), 2(va) of the Act has fallen in grave error, for the reason that no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be adduced on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that the alleged injuries inflicted by the petitioners on the person of the complainant besides being grievous, were dangerous to his life. While referring to of the , Mr. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel further argued that to invoke provisions of of the , it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the intention and knowledge of the accused, if any, to inflict injury on the person of the complainant which could be dangerous to his life. While referring to MLC adduced on record by the prosecution to prove the injuries sustained by the complainant in the alleged incident, Mr. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that doctor attending upon the complainant nowhere opined the injuries, which were though opined to be grievous, to be dangerous to life. If it is so, no case under of the is made out against the accused named in the FIR and at the best accused could have been charged under Section 325 of the for theirs having inflicted grievous injuries on the person/body of the complainant. While referring to MLC, Mr. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel further argued that no injury was ever inflicted by the accused on the vital organs/parts of the body of the complainant, rather as per the own case of the prosecution blow of danda/stick was given by the accused on the arms and shoulders of the complainant, as a result of which, he suffered dislocation and fracture which was subsequently opined to be grievous injury. He further argued that bare perusal of statement of the complainant recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., suggestive of the fact that the accused inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant with the intention to kill him, are not sufficient to attract the provisions of of the . Mr. Thakur, further argued that bare perusal of statement of complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C., nowhere suggests that casteist remarks/abuses, if any, were made/hurled by the accused, rather in his statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., he simply stated that accused, namely, Ankush Dharmender Thakur and Pushpender Sharma came to him and forcefully took him t