Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Radhakishan S/o Shri Jetharam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge charges framed against them. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court hears arguments from counsel. (Para 8) |
| 3. judicial analysis of intent and applicability of section 307 ipc. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. the trial court erred in framing charges. (Para 28) |
| 5. revision petition partly allowed; charges maintained for trial. (Para 29 , 30) |
Order :
FARJAND ALI, J.
Grievance of the Case :
1. By way of filing the instant petition, the petitioners assail the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner, in Sessions Case No. 59/2021, whereby charges for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 and 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC have been framed against the petitioners, despite the absence of prima facie material and in gross abuse of the process of law.
Brief Facts of the Case
2. That the brief facts of the case, which have necessitated the filing of the present revision petition, are that on 30.05.2021 at about 11:02 a.m., respondent No.2/complainant, along with her husband Prem Kumar, submitted a written
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.
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....
Intent and knowledge regarding the commission of offences under Section 307 IPC can be inferred from actions and circumstances, regardless of the nature or extent of actual injuries inflicted.
Intent to kill is essential for Section 307 IPC; mere infliction of injury does not establish attempted murder without clear evidence of intent.
Framing charges under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent or knowledge to kill, which was lacking, thereby limiting the charges to less serious offences.
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.
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.
Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not essential for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury and surrounding circu....
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
