SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(All) 610

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.K.Mathur
RAM GOPAL
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 16 December 1993
Criminal Revision No 296 of 1993;

For a charge under Section 307 IPC, there must be an intention to cause injuries likely to cause death.

Headnote:

Section 307 IPC - Framing of Charge - Lack of Intention to Cause Death

Fact of the Case:

The revision was directed against the order framing the charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused in a Sessions trial.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no intention to cause death, and the injuries did not indicate circumstances sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC.

Issues: The main contention was the lack of material for framing the charge under Section 307 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a charge under Section 307 IPC, there must be an intention to cause injuries likely to cause death, which was not evident in this case.

Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the charges framed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge were set aside, with directions to frame a charge again after hearing the parties.

J. K. MATHUR, J.

This revision has been directed against the order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri on 6-9-1993 framing the charge against the accused in Sessions trial No. 227 of 1991. The main contention raised on behalf of the revisionists is that there is no material for framing the charge under Section 307 I. P. C. A charge under Section 307 I. P. C. could have been framed if there was some material which disclosed an act having been done with such intention and under such circumstances which would have rendered the accused liable for murder if death of anyone had been caused.

2. In this case, the first charge clearly indicates that the intention of the accused was to cause injuries. There being no intention to cause death, the Act of the petitioner could have constituted an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. if the Act was done with intention to cause such bodily injuries which the accused knew to be likely to cause death or he caused with bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or the Act was so imminently dangerous which in all probabilities was sufficient to cause death. In this case, the perusal of the injuries does not disclose any such circumstances.

3. As a result, the revision is allowed. The charges framed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri are not in accordance with law and are hereby set aside. He shall frame a charge again after hearing the parties and passing a reasoned order.

Revision allowed.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top