Charges for culpable homicide require clear evidence of intent or knowledge; grievous injuries alone do not suffice to support such charges under IPC Section 308.

JUDGMENT :

Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist - Abid to quash the impugned order dated 18.4.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bijnor in case crime no. 113 of 2020, under Sections 323 , 504, 308 IPC, Police Station Nehtour, District Bijnor whereby the Magistrate concerned proceeded to frame charge in the matter.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Admit.

4. The facts of the case are that NCR dated 20.2.2020 registered against the revisionist was converted into F.I.R. bearing case crime no. 113 of 2020 under Sections 323 , 504 and 325 IPC on 12.4.2020 and after investigation charge sheet was also submitted for the said offences. The revisionist appeared before the trial court and was released on bail, however, vide order dated 18.4.2025 the Court concerned held that charge should be framed under Section 308 IPC alongwith offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC.

5. Assailing the impugned order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that he has been falsely implicated in this case. From the contents of NCR/FIR and also the statement of witnesses it is crystal clear that there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the revisionist to make assault upon the injured that if his act caused death of the injured he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and more over the doctor, who medically examined the injured, stated in his statement before the Investigating Officer that the injury sustained by the injured was not fatal at all. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients to establish the offence under Section 308 IPC are lacking on the basis of evidence on record.

6. The next argument is that the trial court in an arbitrary manner while hearing on the point of framing of charge suo moto opined that the injury was termed grievous in nature as per the statement of the Medical Officer and the C.T. Scan report. It is also submitted that the supplementary report available on record shows a fracture on nasal spine which was not a vital part of the body. It is further submitted that in the impugned order the Magistrate concerned wrongly interpreted the law on the subject. The opinion expressed by the concerned Magistrate whether the accused person had intention or knowledge to cause death of the deceased by his assault was the subject matter of the evidence in trial and it was also wrongly held that the nose is a vital organ of the body and assault upon the same may have proved fatal.

7. Another limb of the argument is that the Court concerned has totally discarded the legal principles governing the matter of framing of charge and passed the impugned order to face trial under Section 308 IPC as well alongwith Sections 323 and 504 IPC whereas the present case does not travel beyond the scope of Section 323 , 504, 325 IPC and offence Section 308 IPC is not made out at all. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further pointed out certain documents and statements on record in support of his contention and urged that the impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

9. Repudiating the submissions made above, the learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and sub