Akhil Kumar Srivastava DECISION
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. This revision application under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants against the order dated 18.02.2019, passed by learned Sessions Judge, district Sehore in S.T. No. 04 of 2019 against framing the charges against the applicants under Section 294, 323/34, 307/34 and 506-II of IPC under Crime No. 192/18 at P.S. Doraha, district Sehore.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this revision is heard finally.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he only presses this revision only against the charge under Section 307/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that charge under Section 307/34 of IPC is absolutely groundless as there is no material against the applicants for the same. The prosecution has relied on the private medical documents in which head injury was shown as dangerous to life and on that ground the charge under Section 307 of IPC has been framed against the applicants. Learned trial court has overlooked the fact that the intention of the applicants was not commit murder of the complainant. Therefore, the charge under Section 307/34 of IPC may be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the judgement in the matter of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in MANU/SC/7528/2008 : (2008) 10 SCC 394.
5. Learned Govt. Adv. has submitted that learned Sessions Judge, Sehore has not committed any error in law in framing the charge under Section 307 of IPC against the applicants as there is sufficient material on record to show that injury caused to the complainant in the opinion of the medical expert is dangerous to life. The injury was caused on head of complainant, i.e. on vital part of the body.
6. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record as well as documents filed by the applicants alongwith the case diary. This court is of the view that at the outset we should have a look upon the provisions of Section 307 of IPC. The relevant portion of Section 307 of IPC is as follows:-
"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 hereinbefore mentioned.
7. In R. Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0110/2004 : (2004) 9 SCC 27, (supra), the Supreme Court has held:-
"8. Therefore, the only question which needs to be dealt with relates to the applicability of Section 307 IPC. The evidence of the eyewitnesses goes to show that they tried to intervene and save PW-3 from being assaulted by the appellant A-1, but he continued to assault PW-3. The first blow was on a vital part, that is on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on non-vital parts, that does not take away the rigor of Section 307 IPC. It is to be noted that in spite of interference by five persons, appellant continued to assault PW-3. This clearly indicates the intention of the appellant A-1.
9. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 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 Sections makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.--
7. In Jage Ram Vs. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/0074/2015 : (2015) 11, SCC 366, it has been observed:-
"To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given etc.
13. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury.
8. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Harjeet Singh reported in MANU/SC/0238/2019, it has been held:-
"This Court in R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka held that:
"...The first blow was on a vital part, that is on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on non vital parts, that does not take away the rigor of Section 307 IPC.... It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 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 Sections makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section."
9. If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no requirement for the injury to be on a "vital part" of the body, merely causing 'hurt' is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C.
10. After taking guidance from the aforesaid pronouncements of the Apex Court, in the present case, it is evident that as per prosecution case, the applicants have made common intention to cause injury and in furtherance of the common intention they have caused head injury on the vital part of body of the complainant. As per Doctor opinion the injury is dangerous to life, so the knowledge of the accused that by causing such bodily injury on the head of the complainant, it may cause his death, can not be ruled out because the intention is deduced from the act of the accused and other circumstances and it may in some other cases be deducible without any reference to the actual injury caused.
11. The Apex Court judgment cited by learned counsel for the applicants is related to a charge under Section 302 and 120-B of IPC in which some accused were charged only on suspicion which were discharged by the Apex court. In this case, the applicants are charged under Section 307 of IPC on the basis of opinion of medical expert. So this case is different from the case cited by learned counsel for the applicants.
12. Taking into consideration the above citations and on the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the trial Court did not err in framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. The order of framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC by the trial court is as per law. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 regarding framing of charges under Sections 294, 323, r/w Section 34 (two counts), Section 307, r/w Section 34 and Section 506-B of IPC is hereby affirmed. Consequently, the criminal revision filed by the applicants stands dismissed in above terms.
13. Consequently, IA No. 4483 of 19 also stands disposed of.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.