IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the distinction between Sections 307 and 308 IPC is crucial in determining the nature of charges, and that a prima facie case must be established for charges to be framed, without delving into the merits of the evidence at the discharge stage.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. The applicants have approached this Court, by way of filing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (1685 of 2020) arising out of Case Crime No. 554 of 2017 (S.T. No. 628 of 2018), State v. Ram Sunder Shukla and Others, under Sections 307, 323, 325, 308 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Handia, District- Prayagraj, pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 9, Allahabad, as they are aggrieved by impugned order dated 25.03.2019 whereby their discharge application was rejected. The other petition is arising out of a challenge to framing of charges.

2. From the records, it is evident that an FIR was lodged against applicants that they have committed offences under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 307 IPC. For reference, the contents of FIR is reproduced hereinafter:

3. During investigation, injured persons were medically examined and their injury report was taken on record. Statements of injured witnesses and other witnesses were also recorded and a charge-sheet was filed on 07.07.2017 against all the applicants for offences under Section 323, 325, 307, 308 and 506 I.P.C. The learned Trial Court took cognizance and summoned the applicants.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicants filed a discharge application that, on basis of material collected during evidence, no charge could be framed under Sections 307 and 308 IPC. For reference, the contents of discharge application are reproduced hereinafter:

5. The above mentioned discharge application was rejected by the impugned order and relevant paragraphs thereof are mentioned hereinafter:

6. Sri S.K. Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Utsav, learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 506 I.P.C. During investigation, injury report of injured persons were collected and on basis of it, Section 308 was also included. He further referred that in case Section 308 IPC has been included, then no charge could be framed under Section 307 IPC. Since, an opinion has been formed that it was a case where an act was undertaken with such intention or knowledge that he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting murder as mentioned in Section 308 IPC. Therefore, it could not be opined that the the said intention or knowledge was up to the extent that if he, by that act, caused death he would be guilty of murder. Learned counsel submitted that contours of Section 307 and 308 IPC are absolutely different.

7. The above referred submissions are opposed by Sri Pushpendra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party that at the stage of discharge, the learned Trial Court has to see whether there was more than prima facie case against the accused. At this stage, it could not be ascertained whether the evidence is sufficient that it would lead to conviction.

8. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.

9. In the aforesaid background, only contention which required consideration is whether in given facts, a charge under Section 307 IPC could be made out or not. There is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that contours of Section 307 IPC and 308 IPC are different. Under section 307 IPC, knowledge and intention is in regard to murder, whereas under Section 308 IPC, knowledge and intention is in regard to the culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is also well settled as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC Online 1294 that at the stage of consideration of a discharge application, the Court has to consider whether there is a more than prima facie case against the accused and not that, whether on basis of evidence, conviction could be made out or not.

10. For reference, its Para 14 being relevant is mentioned hereinafter:

“14. This Court in the aforesaid judgment has also laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Sectio