Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
GAJENDRA SINGH
Narayan Patidar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
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 w
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.
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.
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.
Charges under Section 307 IPC were improperly framed as the injuries were not grievous; the court directed charges under Section 308 IPC instead.
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.
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.
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....
The court clarified that mere injuries do not justify Section 307 IPC charges without evident homicidal intent, emphasizing strict interpretation of criminal law concerning bodily harm.
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.
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
