The determination of charges under different sections of the RPC depends on the nature of the injuries and the intention of the accused.

1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner-Ram Raj seeks quashing of order dated 22.03.2017 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge Bhaderwah in case File No.02/Sessions titled State Vs. Ravinder Singh and ors., whereby accused- respondents stand discharged of offence under Section 307 and have been charged of offences under Section 325/336/452/34 RPC.

2. Facts giving rise to the instant petition are that on 12.09.2016 at about 6:30 am, the accused armed with an iron rod and a stick with an intention to cause hurt pelted stones towards the house of the complainant/petitioner and then trespassed into the house and attacked the complainant and his wife Indra Devi with rod, stick, kicks and blows on head and other parts of the body causing serious injuries. On raising hue and cry some members came to the rescue of the injured, who were shifted to PHC Bhala from where they were referred to District Hospital Doda. On the strength of written report lodged by the complainant, an FIR No. 104 of 2016 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 307/452/34 RPC was registered in Police Station Bhadarwah. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offences under 307/452/336/34 RPC. The final report was committed for trial by learned Special Mobile Magistrate Bhadarwah to Court of Sessions Judge for disposal under law.

3. It is averred in the petition that the learned Sessions Judge Bhadarwah while framing charges by virtue of order impugned has held that prima facie offence under section 307 RPC is not disclosed against the accused and the offences disclosed against the accused are punishable under sections 325/336/452/34 RPC which are not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. As such transferred the case to the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate Bhadarwah for trial of warrant cases instituted on police report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of the order impugned dated 22.03.2017 by virtue of which the accused have been charged for the offences under section 325/336/452/34 RPC instead of Section 307 RPC, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

(a) That the order impugned is against the facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time and it is not sustainable in the eye of law.

(b) That the learned Sessions Court on the one hand has admitted the fact that the accused were armed with an iron rod and a stick and attacked the complainant and his wife with iron rod, stick and kicks and blows on head. But on the other hand the learned Sessions Court has discharged the accused u/s 307 RPC by holding that the nature of the injuries inflicted and the weapons used to cause those injuries would show that the accused did not have the intention to murder the injured. It is submitted that hitting a person with iron rod on head is nothing but a clear intention to murder.

(c) That the learned Sessions Court while passing the order impugned has held that the counsel for the complainant in order to bring home charge under section 307 PRC, has relied upon the Apex Court’s judgment reported in AIR 2014 SC 2740 and 2014 (2) SCC (Cri.) 584 and vehemently argued that it is not necessary that the injury must have been caused on the vital part of the body. What is to be seen is that the injuries that were intended and not that were caused. The Court in order impugned very strangely had held that the Court is in agreement with the learned Counsel for the complainant but cannot have a straight jacket formula for the purpose of framing of charges. On this ground alone the order impugned deserves dismissal.

(d) That section 307 IPC provides for the imprisonment for life if the act causes “hurt”. It does not require that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. That is what has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further it is only a prima facie view to decide as