1980 Supreme(MP) 286

Faizan Uddin. J.
Ram Sumiran v. State of M. P.
Cr. Revn. No. 800 of 1978 (J);Decided on 18-9-1980.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P. C. 1973-S. 209-power of committal Court under extent of (2) Penal Code, 1860-S 307-charge for offence under-when may be framed-nature of injury-whether a considerable factor-simple injuries caused by fists and kicks-offence does not fall under this section.

       In Cr. Revision No. 800/78, the petitoners seek to quash the charges framed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Umaria against the petitioners under section 307/34 of the IPC, in Sessions Trial No. 72/78, arising out of the Cr. Case No. 129/75 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umaria.

       In Cr. Revision No. 801/78. the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27-10-78 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umaria, in Cr. Case No. 129/75, quashing the charges framed against the petitioners as also· the proceedings of the trial and committing the case to the Sessions for the trial.

       Held: It is settled that the learned Magistrate had a limited power merely to ascertain whether the case, as disclosed by the police challan, appeared to show an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he had no option but to commit the case for trial before the Court of Sessions. All that he could do, was to see if by error, wrong section of the Penal Code was quoted, he could look into that aspect. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, was in any manner illegal or he had no jurisdiction to pass the same.

       In order to constitute an offence under section 307 of the IPC, there must be an act done under such circumstances that the act done must be capable of causing death in the natural and ordinary course of things. It is not necessary that in order to apply provisions of section 307 only when the hurt is actually caused, because the causing of hurt is merely aggravating circumstance. Ai! that is necessary to be established, is the intention with which the act is done and once that intention is established, the nature of the act will be immaterial In a case, where the injury is actually inflicted, the nature of such injury may be of considerable assistance in arriving at the finding that the accused had the intention of causing the death of the victim.

       In such circumstances, the liability of an accused must be limited to the act which he in fact did and should not be extended so as to embrace the consequence of another act which he might have done but did not.

       In the instant case, the medical evidence does not disclose that any serious injury was caused to any of the two persons named above so as to infer an intention of any of the petitioners that they in-fact, wanted to do away with the victims. On the Contrary, the medical evidence shows that the injuries were simple hi nature and could heal-up within seven days. The prosecution case, further disclosed that Mst. Chhoti and Daddi were assaulted only by fists and kicks. In these circumstances it could not be said that the petitioners had an intention or even knowledge that the act committed by them, would result into death of any of the two victims in the ordinary course of nature. AIR 1978 SC 514 relied on. .Cr. Revision 800 allowed. Cr. Revision 801 dismissed.