Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.
Yogendra and Another - Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 4365 of 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 308, 323, 324, 308, 504 and 506 - Raising construction to encroach upon land - Physically assaulted informant - Order for discharging accused persons - Revision filed against order for discharging accused persons for offence was dismissed and case was posted for framing of charge – Intention or knowledge as case may be and even attending facts and circumstances may be of even greater significance. [Para 6]
Finding of the Court: Papers show that there were three injured persons who sustained seven injuries on his person and four out them were above neck, Chandan Tiwari who sustained five injuries, with one on head and X-ray showed soft tissues shadow, mildly increased over vault of skull - Third sustained three injuries - Intention or knowledge as case may be and even attending facts and circumstances may be of even greater significance - In court view, nature of injuries, seat of injuries and number thereof may be material but are not everything to decide upon fact as to which charge is made out - However, in this case from contents of F.I.R. coupled with medical evidence, prima facie offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out - At stage of framing of charge no in depth enquiry into evidence or credibility thereto is required – Court do not find any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in order so as to justify interference by revisional court.
Result: Revision dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. None responds for the revisionists. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 06.09.2022 by which the application moved under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging the accused persons for offence under Section 308 I.P.C. was dismissed and case was posted for framing of charge.
3. The material facts are as below:-
The F.I.R. against the applicants and two more has been filed under Section 323 and 324 I.P.C. with the allegations that the accused persons were raising construction to encroach upon the land of Gram Samaj. The first informant and his brother protested. Irked over such interference accused persons physically assaulted the first informant Sanjay Tiwari and his brother causing them injuries. After investigation chargesheet has been filed under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
4. Perusal of the revision memo shows that the revisionists are aggrieved by order for framing charge under Section 308 I.P.C. in addition and rejection of discharge application. The only ground taken by the revisionist is that injuries sustained by the injured persons were not fatal in nature. There was not a single fracture on vital part of the person of any of the injured.
5. I went through material on record. Papers show that there were three injured persons namely Ramashankar Tiwari who sustained seven injuries on his person and four out them were above neck, Chandan Tiwari who sustained five injuries, with one on the head and the X-ray showed soft tissues shadow, mildly increased over vault of skull. The third Umashankar Tiwari sustained three injuries.
6. It is settled position that number of injuries or nature of injuries are not the sole factor to decide upon whether any and if so what offence affecting human body is made out. The intention or knowledge as the case may be and even attending facts and circumstances may be of even greater significance.
7. In my view, nature of the injuries, seat of injuries and number thereof may be material but are not everything to decide upon the fact as to which charge is made out. However, in this case from the contents of the F.I.R. coupled with medical evidence, prima facie offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out. At the stage of framing of charge no in depth enquiry into evidence or credibility thereto is required. I do not find any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the order so as to justify interference by revisional court.
8. The criminal revision is dismissed at the stage of admission.
SupremeToday
Accused cannot maintain application under Section 128(1)(a), Cr.P.C. for transferring case from Court of Sessions to a Court of Magistrate on the ground that no offence under Section 308, I.P.C. is m....
An attempt to commit culpable homicide, even if unsuccessful, falls under Section 308 IPC, justifying trial in the Sessions Court.
The court established that for a charge under Section 307 IPC to be sustained, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not present in this case due to the nature of injuries and the....
The intention or knowledge of an accused under Section 308 IPC has to be ascertained only prima facie at the stage of charge, based on the injury caused to the victim.
The court established that intent to commit culpable homicide must be clearly evidenced by the nature of injuries, which was not the case here.
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.
The court upheld the trial court's framing of charges under IPC, affirming that the nature of injuries justified the charges without finding any illegality or perversity.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
