The central legal point established in the judgment is that the intention to cause harm, as inferred from the circumstances and the use of deadly weapons, can justify the framing of a charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C., irrespective of the specific location or nature of the injuries.

G.S. Solanki, J.

1. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwara, District Chhindwara in S.T. No. 281/2012, whereby charge under Sections 147, 294, 341, 307/34 and 333 of the I.P.C. has been framed against this applicant and also against co-accused. Facts in short, are that on 17.07.2012, when complainant Radheshyam Raghuwanshi was going alongwith his colleague Lalit Malani in the vehicle Maruti Van No. 28-BD-1090. It is alleged that applicant and other co-accused persons restrained them on the way and took out Lalit Malani from the aforesaid vehicle. It is further alleged that applicant Chetan Raghuwanshi and co-accused Ajju Raghuwanshi were having iron rod in their hand and other co-accused persons were having wooden stick. Initially they abused Lalit Malani and thereafter they assaulted him with the intention to kill him by using the iron rod and sticks. Complainant Radheshyam tried to intervene them but accused persons threatened him for dire consequences and left injured Lalit assuming that he died and run away from the spot.

2. Police Station Chourai, District Chhindwara registered offence under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 294, 506 and 307 of the I.P.C. against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Injured Lalit was sent to the hospital and he has been treated. As per MLC report, the doctor has found as many as 12 injuries in different parts of his body like chest, back side, hands and legs and complaint of pain and swelling in other parts of the body. As per X-ray report, he sustained fracture in 4th and 5th proximal Phalanx. He was also treated in private hospital at Aditya Critical Care Emergency Centre, Nagpur, wherein he was treated and was found a fracture of 9th rib as well as 4th and 5th Proximal Carpel Right Hand.

3. Applicant and co-accused have been arrested. After usual investigation, they have been prosecuted before the committal court. The committal court in turn committed the case to the court of sessions and the same has been made over for trial to the trial Court. The trial Court has framed the charge as mentioned hereinabove, hence this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial Court committed an illegality in framing a charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. against the applicant. Since none of these injuries have been found on the vital part of the body, therefore, intention of the applicant and co-accused was not to cause death to injured Lalit. He has also placed reliance on decision of this Court in Vardichand Vs. Rameshwar and others [2006(1) M.P.L.J. 388].

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned order. He further submitted that there was no fracture on the body of injured person in the case of Vardichand (supra), therefore, principle laid down in the aforesaid case is not applicable in this case.

6. I have perused the impugned order alongwith the record of the trial Court, wherein Lalit has sustained as many as 12 injuries. As per X-Ray report and discharge summary report given by the doctor of Aditya Critical Care Emergency Centre, Nagpur, wherein as many as three fractures have been found in the body of injured Lalit. It is true that none of the injuries were found on the head of injured Lalit, but at the same time, it is well established principle of law that number of injuries are not only the decisive factor in regard to offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. as observed by the Supreme Court in Bappu @ Bapu Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2004(4) M.P.L.J. 262], wherein it has held that:-

The Court is to see whether the act in question, irrespective of its results, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in Section 307, it is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with so