Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4814
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
GAJENDRA SINGH, J
MANISH KERVAR AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2597 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Manish Manana
For the Respondents: Shri S.S Thakur
Criminal intent can be inferred from the nature of the assault and context, not solely from the injuries sustained, affirming charges for attempted murder.
Headnote:(A) BNSS, 2023 - Sections 296, 109, 132, 351(3) - Criminal Revision for framing of charges against petitioners accused of assaulting public servants engaged in cleaning work - Petitioners contested lack of intent and presence of dangerous injuries as per provisions - Court articulated the critical nature of sustained injuries irrespective of intent - Charges maintained due to significant intent established through weapon use and prior context. (Paras 2, 3, 9, 10)
(B) Criminal Law - Attempt to murder - Intention and knowledge essential for establishing culpability under IPC Section 307 - Reckless action alongside weapon choice and victim targeting indicative of intent to harm. (Paras 60-66)
Facts of the case:
Revision petitioners faced charges for allegedly assaulting public servants involved in road cleaning, with arguments focusing on the nature of the injuries and intent to commit a crime being contested.
Findings of Court:
Court affirmed the framing of charges, establishing that intent coupled with the nature of injury can sufficiently justify accusations of attempted murder.
Issues: The main issue revolved around whether the injuries were life-threatening and whether intent to murder was present among petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that criminal intent could be inferred from the incident context and the means of assault, emphasizing the responsibility to acknowledge the nature of injuries as indicative of intent.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of assaulting public employees were presented. (Para 3) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH rd ON THE 23 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2597 of 2025 MANISH KERVAR AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:
Shri Manish Manana - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri S.S Thakur -G.A for the respondent/State.
Reserved on 16.07.2025 Pronounced on 23.07.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER This criminal revision under section 438 of the BNSS , 2023 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2025 in S.C.No.777/2025 by A.S.J, Nagda, district Ujjain whereby charges under sections 296, 109 r/w section 3(5), 115 (2) r/w section 3(5), 132, 351 (3) of the BNS, 2023 have been framed against the revision petitioner no.2 Om Prakash Kervar and charges under sections 296, 109, 132, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 have been framed against revision petitioner no.1 Manish Kervar in a case arising out of first Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR information report registered as crime no.71/2025 registered at police station Birla Gram, Nagda, Ujjain.
2. The charges have been framed for attempting to murder of Rakesh Kalyane and Shahzad, who were employed in Nagar Palika, Nagda and were engaged in the work of cleaning roads and on the date of incident i.e. 19.02.2025 were also supervising the work of cleaning roads. They enquired about the garbage that was littered on the road and due to this they were assaulted by the revision petitioners and Manish Kervar caused the injuries to Shahzad and Rakesh Kalyane.
3. This revision petition is preferred on the ground that the ingredients of section 109 or 132 of the BNS, 2023 are lacking in the entire prosecution story. There is no material to establish that the so called injuries sustained by the complainants are dangerous to life. The intention of committing any offence was totally lacking in the entire prosecution story. There is nothing to establish intimidation, insult or annoyance of any person nor there was any disturbance to the possession of any such person. There is nothing to establish that petitioners ever conspired to commit any criminal act in furtherance of common intention. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which an upon whom the alleged offence have been committed. The petitioners were not Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR at all in the possession of any deadly weapon. The medical expert gave the opinion that the injuries of both the complainants Shahzad and Rakesh are simple in nature. The allegations are totally baseless and are without foundation. The complainants are not public servants.
4. Heard.
5. Govt. Advocate opposed the petition.
6. Perused the record.
7. In Tillu @ Manish Vs. State of M.P. ( Cr. A No.
2768/2021 judgment dated 22-08-2022) co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Gwalior has discussed the position regarding nature of injuries in determining the commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC in paragraphs- 58 to 66. 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 :
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR
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 life convicts.—When any person offending under this section is u
