A charge under section 307 cannot be sustained when the evidence fails to establish intent to kill, affirming a need to assess injuries and circumstances carefully.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners have filed the present revision petition under section 397 read with 401, and 482 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE against of order dated 25-7-2023 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District-Ujjain (M.P.) in S.T. No. 18/2023 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for offence punishable under sections 307 of the Penal Code.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that, on 22-7-2022, at around 2:46 A.M. the F.I.R. under sections 147, 323, 324, 294 and 506 of INDIAN PENAL CODE was registered against the accused persons at the instance of complainant Omsingh Parihar stating that at around 09:00 p.m. on 21-7-2022, the accused persons assaulted him. It is alleged in the FIR that complainant Omsingh Parihar along with his elder brother was going Simrole from his agriculture field, and when he reached near Ram Mandir, at that time, the accused persons Pratapsingh Arya, Ram Singh and Dileep Singh came in front of them from a four wheeler and started abusing the complainant. When the brother of the complainant Amarsingh tried to intervene, at that time, accused Pratapsingh Arya took out a knife from his pocket and started assaulting Omsingh, due to which, he received injury on his left elbow and the other accused persons also assaulted him. After the charge-sheet was filed, the charges have been framed against the petitioners vide order dated 25-7-2023 as aforesaid under sections 147, 323, 324, 294 and 506 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and, being aggrieved, this petition has been filed.

3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a perusal of the FIR and other documents filed along with the charge-sheet, it clearly reveals that no case for commission of an offence under section 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is made out as complainant Omsingh has suffered injury on his left elbow, which is also simple in nature and at that time, no injury was found on his person as it is alleged that the other accused persons assaulted him with kick and fists. It is also submitted that injured/complainant Omsingh subsequently got himself examined in the District hospital Ujjain on 6-8-2022 and at that time also, no other injury was found on his person. However, he again got himself examined in a private Laboratory, in which also, no injury was found. However, in his NCCT and HRCT chest report dated 8-8-2022, it is found that he has suffered displaced fracture at the anterior end of 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th ribs with early callus formation. It is further submitted that the aforesaid injury was not at all caused by them and it cannot be said that the ingredients of section 307/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE are made out. It is also submitted that no knife has been recovered in the present case and, thus, the charge under section 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is liable to be set aside.

4. To bolster his submissions, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Champa Lal Dhakar vs. Naval Singh Rajput and others , (2019) 4 SCC 146 ; Ghulam Mustafa vs. State of Uttaranchal , (2016) 15 SCC 752 and Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another , (1979) 3 SCC 4 and the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in the case of Ramnath @ Rammu Gond and Ors. vs. State of M.P. ILR (2012) M.P. 587.

5. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. However, it is not denied that no knife has been seized from any of the accused persons and there is no FSL report available on record.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. So far as the intention of a person to c