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.

ORDER :

GAJENDRA SINGH, J.

This criminal revision under section 397 r/w section 401 & 482 of the Cr.P.C (section 438 r/w section 442 & 528 of BNSS , 2023) is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2025 in S.T.No.13/2025 by 3rd ASJ, Sardarpur, district Dhar whereby charges under sections 294, 307 alternatively 324 of the IPC and section 25 (IB)(b) of the ARMS ACT , 1959 have been framed against the revision petitioner in a case arising out of crime no.329/2024 registered at PS Amjhera, district Dhar.

2. Facts in brief are that crime no.329/2024 registered at PS Amjhera, district Dhar was registered under sections 294 & 323 of the IPC on the report of injured Narayan Patidar s/o Balaram Patidar regarding incident dated 29.06.2024 at 9.30 p.m in which it was stated that Narayan Patidar s/o Balaram Patidar along with his nephew Hiralal s/o Rameshwar Patidar were going from godown to their house situated in village Morgaon, PS Amjhera, district Dhar and near the godown they met Narayan s/o Rameshwar Patidar who uttered abusive words to complainant Narayan and his nephew Hiralal Patidar and when they objected to the abusive words, then Narayan s/o Rameshwar Patidar assaulted with faliya and caused injury on the head of Narayan s/o Balaram Patidar. Narayan s/o Balaram Patidar was medically examined at a community health centre, Amjhera and thereafter he was taken to Mital Medical Care and Hospital, Private Ltd., Dhar where he was treated from 30.06.2024 to 03.07.2024. A faliya of 12 inch iron blade of 1.5 inch width and attached with a 20 inch bamboo stick handle covered by a wire was recovered from the petitioner/accused on 15.10.2024. After necessary query from Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Amjhera, the opinion of Additional District Prosecution Officer, charges under section 307 of the IPC and section 25(1B)(b) of the ARMS ACT , 1959 were added.

3. The trial court framed the charges as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment and this revision petition is preferred on the ground that injuries to Narayan s/o Balaram Patidar is simple in nature. There is no repeat blow on the complainant/victim. The opinion from Medical Officer has been obtained on 15.07.2024 only in order to implicate the petitioner by noting that the injury was dangerous to life due to excessive blood loss whereas enquiry, medical documents and CT scan of the complainant reveal the injury to be simple in nature. Accordingly, framing of charge under section 307 of the IPC is erroneous.

4. Heard.

5. Counsel for the victim/complainant has opposed the revision petition. Counsel for the State has also opposed the revision petition.

6. Perused the report submitted under section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 and the documents submitted along with the final report.

7. The following two ingredients are necessary to make out an offence under section 307 of the IPC:-

(a) Knowledge or intention that by his act, if murder is caused then he would be guilty of murder;

(b) Does any act towards commission of that offence.

8. Although the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Saleem reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554, has held in para 66 & 67 as under:-

66. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx

12. To justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be atten