Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Salman and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
CRR 3473 of 2018
Decided on : 11-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Avadhesh Parashar, adv
For the Respondent: Shri R.K. Upadhyay, adv
The decisive factor for ascertaining the offence under Section 307 of IPC is the knowledge or intention of the accused, which can be inferred from the role played by the accused persons.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Charges Framed under Section 307/34, 452, 294, 506-B of IPC and under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act - Section 307, Section 34, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the nature of injuries and the intention or knowledge of the accused as decisive factors for ascertaining the offence under Section 307 of IPC. It referred to legal provisions and interpretations from State of MP vs. Harjeet Singh and Another, R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan & Ors, Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, and State of M.P. v. Kanha @ Omprakash to establish that the nature of injury is not the decisive factor, but the knowledge or intention of the accused is the decisive factor which can be inferred from the role played by the accused persons.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant lodged a report alleging assault and attempted murder by the accused persons, resulting in injuries to the complainant and his brother. The Trial Court framed charges under various sections of IPC and the Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the nature of injury is not the decisive factor for ascertaining the offence under Section 307 of IPC, but the knowledge or intention of the accused is the decisive factor which can be inferred from the role played by the accused persons. It directed the Trial Court to reconsider the aspect of charges under Section 147, 148, 149 of IPC or the charge with the aid of Section 34 of IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the framing of charges under Section 307/34, 452, 294, 506-B of IPC and under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act, and the role of each accused in the alleged assault and attempted murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 307 of IPC, emphasizing the intention or knowledge of the accused as the decisive factor for ascertaining the offence, as established in various legal precedents.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to reconsider the aspect of charges under Section 147, 148, 149 of IPC or the charge with the aid of Section 34 of IPC.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 19/06/2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar in ST No.162/2017 by which the charges under Section 307/34 (two counts), 452, 294, 506-B of IPC and under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act, have been framed.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present revision in short are that complainant Subham Yadav lodged a report on 18/05/2007 at 00.28 on the allegation that he is residing near Old Kacheri. His elder brother Rahul Yadav came from the market and instructed him to park the vehicle. While the complainant was parking the vehicle, at that time, the accused persons, namely, Sanu Bagula, Salman, Sanu Musalman Younger brother of Salman and Akhtar came there and instructed him to remove the vehicle. When it was replied by the complainant that he is merely parking the vehicle, then all the four accused persons started scolding him and went back. Thereafter, four accused persons came back. Sanu Bagula was armed with a sword, Salman was armed with a knife, Sanu Musalman and Akhtar were armed with iron rods and by that time, the complainant and his elder brother had already gone inside the house. Sanu Bagula, Salman and Akhtar entered in the house and Sanu Bagula instructed that both of them should be dragged out and should be killed and accordingly, Sanu, Salman and Akhtar dragged the complainant and his elder brother outside the house and Sanu Bagula with intention to kill the complainant assaulted on his head by means of sword. Salman Musalman and Akhtar assaulted the complainant by means of iron rods. Salman gave a knife blow to his elder brother Rahul Yadav which landed on the right side of head and another blow was given which landed on the left side of hand. The third blow landed on the wrist of left hand of his elder brother. When Sanu Bagula tried to repeat the blow by means of sword, then the elder brother of the complainant saved him, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his three fingers. At that time, Sanu called Ubesh on phone, who came there along with an iron rod and Ubesh also assaulted both the brothers. After hearing the shouts of the complainant and his brother, the witnesses came there and the accused persons ran away.
3. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet and the Trial Court by order dated 19/06/2018 has framed the charges as mentioned above.
3. Challenging the order framing charges, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that so far as the injuries sustained by the victims are concerned, as none of them had sustained any bony injury, therefore, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out. It is further submitted that so far as the co-accused Ubesh is concerned, since he was not present on the spot right from the initiation of incident and it is alleged that he came on the spot at a later stage after receiving the telephonic call from Sanu, therefore, neither he was the member of unlawful assembly nor was sharing any common object.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. So far as the role played by each of the applicants is concerned, the FIR is very clear and according to which, all the accused persons had played an active role. Whether they were the members of unlawful assembly or they were sharing any common object, cannot be decided at this stage. It is for the trial Court to consider this aspect after recording the evidence. So far as the nature of injury for offence under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, it is well-established principle of law that the intention or knowledge on the part of the accused persons is the only ingredient to make out an offence under Section 307 of IPC.
6. Section 307 of the Penal Code reads as under:-
“307. Attempt to murder.-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished
