Intent under Section 307 of IPC requires clear evidence; mere assumptions insufficient for framing serious charges.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH th ON THE 4 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1082 of 2025 DHARMENDRA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Mitesh Jain - learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Hemant Sharma - learned GA for the respondent/State.

Shri Makbool Ahmad Mansoori, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to

6.

ORDER This Criminal Revision under Section 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred challenging the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in S.T.No.31/2024 by the learned Additional Session Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain whereby the charges have been framed under Section 294 , 323 r/w 34 (2 counts), 324 & 506 Part-II of the IPC against the respondent No.2 Dilip @ Ashok Mali and charges under Section 294 , 323 r/w 34 (2 counts), 324 r/w 34 and 506 Part-II of the IPC has been framed against the respondents no.2 to 6 and transferred the case for trial to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khachrod, District Ujjain under Section 228 (1)(a)

of the Cr.P.C. , 1973.

2. Challenging the order, this criminal revision is preferred on the ground that the trial Court committed error in not framing the charges under Section 118 and 109 of the BNS , 2023 despite the fact that injury caused on vital part which is head and that too by lethal, sharp, edge pointed weapon scissor. The query report Signature Not Verified based on CT scan and MLC corroborated the allegation of the complainant Dharmendra. In CT scan, laceration and swelling has been found. For framing the charges under Section 307 of the IPC or 109 of the BNS , 2023 only intention is required and the intention can be inferred from bare perusal of F.I.R., CT scan, query report and seizure memo. The charges ought to have been framed under the provisions of BNS , 2023.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The record discloses that the F.I.R. No.292/2024 was registered at Police Station Khachrod, District Ujjain regarding the incident dated 13.05.2024 under Sections 294 , 323, 324 & 506 r/w section 34 of the IPC and completing the investigation. The final report was submitted under Section 294 , 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 and Section 326 of the IPC . The matter was committed to the court of Additional Session Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain and ASJ, Khachrod framed the charges as mentioned above recording the reason for not framing the charges under Section 326 of the IPC that the injury caused to Dharmedra does not fall within the purview of Section 320 of the IPC and discharged the respondent no.2 to 6.

4. The final report discloses that section 326 of the IPC was added referring to the query report of Lekhraj Patidar regarding Dharmendra.

5. The said query report dated 17.05.2024 mentions that the injury to Dharmendra is grievous in nature. No reason has been assigned in the report dated 17.05.2024. When further query was made vide letter dated 25.06.2024 then it was clarified that the injury was caused in the head by the sharp object and in the case of excessive bleeding, the injury could be grievous in nature.

6. Above clarification does not bring the case within the ambit of Section

320 of the IPC .

Signature Not Verified Now we are examining the arguments that the matter satisfy the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC .

7. The genesis of the incident is material. The incident happened when the respondent No.2/Dilip @ Ashok Mali reached to the hair cutting saloon of the revision petitioner and during exchange of filthy words, the respondent no.2 assaulted the petitioner through scissor used in the saloon of revision petitioner and caused injury in the head. Thereafter, another persons entered into the shop and injuries were caused by fists and legs to the petitioner and son. The CT-Brain Plain report dated 14.05.2024 has reported the impression as scalp swelling with laceration in the right high pariet