Intention in criminal assault cases is essential; mere injury does not solely determine the application of Section 307 IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH nd ON THE 2 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5010 of 2024 MAN SINGH AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Virendra Sharma -Senior Advocate with Shri Satish Yadav for the petitioners.

Shri S.S Thakur -G.A for the respondent/State.

ORDER This criminal revision under section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred challenging the order dated 17.09.2024 in S.T.No.25/2024 by 2nd A.S.J, Mahidpur, district Ujjain whereby charges under sections 147, 148, 307 r/w section 149, 324, 506 Part-II of the IPC have been framed against all the revision petitioners and additional charge under section 25(1-b)(b) of the Arms Act , 1959 has been framed against the revision petitioners Mansingh and Gopal Singh. The charge under section 307 of the IPC has been framed for committing attempt of murder of Pawan Anjana and charge under Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR section 324 IPC has been framed for causing voluntary injury by sharp edged weapon to Om Anjana.

2. This revision petition is preferred on the ground that one of the most important aspect is the intention and in the First Information Report and the statements, injured never said that the accused persons have assaulted with the intention to kill. The victims have not suffered any fractures on the vital part of the body. Accordingly, charge under section 307 of the IPC is not sustainable. Whatsoever charge may be framed falls within the purview of section 324 of the IPC for both the injured.

3. Heard.

4. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision petition and supported the impugned order.

5. Perused the First Information Report lodged on

07.02.2024 regarding the incident dated 06.02.2024 and a crime no.23/24 was registered at police station Raghvi, district Ujjain in which the allegations are that when the victim side were in front of their house in village Kitiya, then accused party came armed with sword, Daria and axe and assaulted Om Anjana and Pawan Anjana.

The assault on Pawan is stated to be on the head.

6. Referring to the X-ray and CT scan report of the head it is submitted that even Pawan sustained no grievous injuries and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR grievous injuries regarding which the query dated 01.03.2024 has been submitted is regarding the injury of left side of hand in which second and third phylum were fractured and treated through CRIF and K wire fixing.

7. 6. In Tillu @ Manish Vs. State of M.P. ( Cr. A No.

2768/2021 dated 22-08-2022) Hon'ble the High Court of Madhya Pradesh of Gwalior Bench has discussed the position regarding nature of injuries in determining the commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC in paragraphs- 58 to 67. Those are being reproduced hereunder :-

"58. It is well established principle of law that nature of injuries are not decisive factor to find out as to whether the accused has committed an offence under Section 307 of IPC or not?

59. Section 307 of IPC reads as under :

307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned. Attempts by Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR life convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

60. From the plain reading of Section 307 of IPC, it is clear that presence of injury is not si