Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 1029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J.
Prince Pratap Singh And Others – Applicants
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 1065 of 2025
Decided On : 25-07-2025
For the Applicant :Shri Sheersh Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms Shraddha Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, Shri S.M. Patel, Advocate
Intention and surrounding circumstances, rather than injury severity alone, determine applicability of Section 307 IPC in assault cases.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 450, 307, 324, 147, 148, 149 - Charges framed against applicants for assault and attempt to murder - Revisiting the intent behind the charges framed is essential, as a mere injury, irrespective of severity, can invoke the provisions of Section 307 - The court underscored that injuries alone do not determine culpability; intention must be inferred from actions and circumstances (Paras 8, 10, 12).
(B) Charges framing - The essence of charge framing is to establish prima facie evidence of intent or knowledge of the accused - Presence of weaponry and occurring injuries strengthen the basis for charges under serious offences (Paras 2, 4, 6).
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleges that a group assaulted the complainant family with malicious intent, resulting in multiple injuries.
Findings of Court:
Upon review of medical reports, the serious nature of assaults aligns with intentions to inflict grievous harm, thus supporting charges under Section 307.
Issues: The determination of appropriate charges given the nature of injuries vis-a-vis alleged intent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that injuries' severity is ancillary; the demonstrable intent and circumstantial evidence are paramount to sustaining charges under Section 307.
Result: Revision dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of events leading to the case. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. framing of charges based on common object. (Para 2) |
ORDER :
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J.
This revision under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C. (Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023) has been filed assailing the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna whereby charges for commission of offence under Sections 450 , 307 in the alternate 307/149, 324 (three counts) read with Sections 149 , 147 and 148 of IPC have been framed against the applicants. Challenge has been made only to framing of charge under Section 307 in alternate 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 28.01.2024 at around 7.00 p.m. Badri Patel R/o Kumhari was going to perform Puja in Chandi Mata hut. In the meantime, Deependra Raja, Prince Raja armed with iron rods, Raj Singh, Bhura Musalman, Upendra Singh, Sonu Singh and Raja ji armed with lathis forming unlawful assembly, in furtherance of their common object came and assaulted Pradeep Patel S/o Badri Patel. When Badri Patel came for rescue of his son, they all assaulted him too by iron rods and lathis. Badri Patel fled into his house but all accused trespassed into house and again assaulted him. When his wife Shyam Bai and daughter Somwati came for his rescue, they assaulted them too. When they raised noise, Sant Kumar Patel and Rinku Patel reached there, at this they all fled away from the spot. Information was given to the police and police took injured to the hospital. It was also informed that all accused persons on account of old enmity with an intention to kill them formed unlawful assembly and in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly assaulted them with an intention to cause their death. FIR was registered. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by impugned order framed charges against all applicants/accused for commission of offence under Sections 450 , 307 read with Section 149 , 324 (3 counts) read with Sections 149 , 147, 148 of IPC. By filing the present revision, only the order framing charges under Section 307 /307/149 of IPC has been assailed.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in query reports and in X-ray examination and C.T. scan report, no fracture was found in the head of Pradeep and Badri Patel. As no fracture was found in the head of Badri Patel, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out. Hence, the learned Trial Court has committed an error in framing charge under Section 307 /149 of IPC. It is submitted that for framing of charge for an offence under Section 307 of IPC, intention to cause death has to be on the record. As injuries are simple in nature, it was not justified on the part of Trial Court to frame charge under Section 307 /149 of IPC. Therefore, it is prayed that the charges framed under Section 307 /307/149 of IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna being erroneous be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that for framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC, merely causing hurt is sufficient. It is submitted that even injury is not required to be on the vital part of the body. Therefore, he has prayed to dismiss the revision and uphold the order of framing of charge.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. On perusal of the medical reports and material available in the charge sheet, it is apparent that injured Badri Patel has sustained five injuries and out of these injuries, one injury is on the head i.e. left parietal region and other injuries are on rest part of the body, his son Pradeep Patel has sustained 08 injuries and wife and daughter have also sustained one-one injury.
8. As far as Section 307 of IPC is concerned, for framing an offence under Section 307 of IPC, there is no requirement for the injury to be on the vital
