P&H HC: Offence u/s 295A won’t be Attracted if Act done Without Malicious Intent  ||  Ker. HC: No Liability on RTO to Pay Compensation if Vehicle Owner Fails to get it Insured  ||  Guj. HC: Elected Members Must Not Disrepute the Institution to Which they are Elected  ||  All. HC: Scheme of A&C Act Put no Limitation for Application of Doctrine of Severability to an Award  ||  Kar. HC: Apprehension of Not Getting a Fair Trial is Required to Seek Transfer of Case  ||  Ker. HC: Not Granting Divorce Despite Mutual Consent Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Tel. HC: Elders in the House Can’t Decide Custody of Child  ||  All. HC: Gravity of Misconduct and Past Conduct Relevant to be Considered by Disciplinary Authority  ||  P&H HC Issues Guidelines on Proclamation u/s 82 CrPC  ||  SC: Can File Complaint Under Repealed FERA Provisions During Sunset Period After Enforcement of FEMA    

Govind Singh Rana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh - (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) (16 May 2019)

If assailant acts with intention that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then provisions of Section 307 of IPC would be applicable

MANU/MP/0254/2019

Criminal

Present revision application has been filed by the applicants against the order, passed by learned Sessions Judge, framing the charges against the Applicants under Section 294, 323/34, 307/34 and 506-II of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (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.

According to Section 307 of IPC, 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.

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 of IPC 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 Section 307 of IPC.

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, cannot be ruled out because the intention is deduced from the act of the accused and other circumstances.

The trial Court did not err in framing the charge under Section 307 of 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 regarding framing of charges is hereby affirmed. Consequently, the criminal revision filed by the Applicants stands dismissed.

Tags : CHARGES   FRAMING OF   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved