Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
GAJENDRA SINGH
Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
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
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.
At the charge framing stage, the court only needs to establish a prima facie case indicating the accused might have committed the offence, without delving into the sufficiency of evidence.
For framing charges under Section 307 IPC, intention and knowledge are crucial, and a prima facie case must be established based on the injuries and circumstances surrounding the incident.
Framing charges under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent or knowledge to kill, which was lacking, thereby limiting the charges to less serious offences.
The court affirmed that for Section 307 IPC, causing hurt with intent or knowledge is sufficient, and the trial court must assess evidence to determine if charges are warranted.
Intent and knowledge regarding the commission of offences under Section 307 IPC can be inferred from actions and circumstances, regardless of the nature or extent of actual injuries inflicted.
The court held that the mere presence of injuries does not negate intent; evidence of planning and the nature of injuries confirmed the charge of attempt to murder, illustrating the required intent a....
Charges under Section 307 IPC cannot be framed without clear evidence demonstrating common intention to kill, emphasizing the need for careful assessment of material at the charge stage.
The court clarified that to sustain a charge under section 307 IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate intent to kill, which cannot be inferred solely based on the nature of the injury inflicted.
Charges under Section 307 IPC were improperly framed as the injuries were not grievous; the court directed charges under Section 308 IPC instead.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
