For charges under IPC Section 307, mere injuries perceived as simple do not absolve the accused; intent demonstrated through acts suffices, even without grievous harm.

ORDER :

This criminal revision under section 397 r/w section 401 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2024 in S.T. No.29/2024 whereby the charges under sections 294, 147, 148, 323/ 149(06 Counts), 324/ 149(02 Counts), 307/ 149(02 Counts), 201, 506(Part-2), 427 of IPC have been framed against revision petitioner Rajesh Chouhan and charges under sections 294, 147, 148, 323/149 (06 Counts), 324/149(02 Counts), 307/149(02 Counts), 201, 506(Part-2), 427 of IPC have been framed against revision petitioner Mithun Parmar, Ravi@Umesh Goswami, Ajgar Khan and Rakesh Chouhan in a case arising out of Crime No.358/2024 registered at P.S. Betma, District- Indore (M.P.).

2. The main grievance of the petitioner relates to framing of charges under sections 307 of the IPC for attempt to committing the murder to Chittar Singh and Shubham and revision petition is preferred on the ground that it is a case of free fight between two group and total number of accused in present case are 10 and total number of accused in cross case are 5 registered as crime no.357/2024 at P.S. Betma, District Indore (M.P.) under section 294, 323, 325, 506, 190/34 of the IPC against Chittar Singh, Mukesh, Shubham Mamta and Sundhar Bai.

3. It is also submitted that the incident took place at the spur of moment, so intention, motive and common object will not attract for framing charges under section 307/149 of the IPC for attempting the murder off Chittar Singh and Shubham. As per MLC and other documents filed by the prosecution did not mention that sustained injuries are dangerous to life. They sustained no fracture and injuries are simple. The review petitioners relied on the case of Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan (2002) Cri.L.J. 390 and the case of Bholu alias Hanuman Vs. State of Rajasthan (2008) Cri.L.J. 3744 .

4. Heard.

5. Counsel for the respondent no.1/State opposes the prayer submitting that charges have been framed on the basis of material available with the final report submitting under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 & only "grievous suspicion" is required at the Stage of framing of charges. No injury is required for framing charges under section 307 of the IPC.

6. Counsel for the respondent no.2 also opposes the revision petition.

7. Perused the record.

Basic Ingredients/ Necessary requirements for constituting offence u/s 307 of the IPC are:-

8. Before discussing & examining the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to refer the basic/fundamental ingredients/requirements necessary in law to constitute the offence u/s 307 of IPC. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jage Ram Vs. State of Haryana , (2015)11 SCC 366 , has held as under:-

“12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident