THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.208 of 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.144 of 2022 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections120-B, 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.) and Section 25 (1-B) of Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police against the petitioners and other accused stating that he is having an agricultural land boundary dispute with petitioners, as such, the petitioners attacked him and a case was registered against them to that effect. It is further stated that the petitioners are involved in many cases and cases registered against them are running before different Courts. The petitioners thought that respondent No.1 is responsible for all the cases registered against them and developed grudge against him and decided to kill him. Recently, respondent No.1 noticed that the petitioners made contract with the rowdy sheeters of Khammam Town and paid some amount and also provided weapons to them to kill him. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No. 290 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 307 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 25 (1-B) of the Act and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam District.

3. Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and the allegations levelled against them are vague and baseless. He further submitted that the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC are not made out in the present case. The allegations do not disclose that the overt act was committed by any of the petitioners. It is submitted that unless an overt act is committed no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out. The mere preparation or intention to commit any offence of murder would not make out an offence under Section 307 of IPC. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vasant Vithu Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra, [2004 (9) SCC 31], wherein in paragraph No.9, it is held as follows: “9. In the aforesaid factual scenario, it has to be seen whether Section 307 of IPC has application to the present case. Section 307 of IPC reads as follows:

“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 hereinbefore mentioned.

To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds.

The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as th