JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : The unsuccessful victim woman has approached this Court with a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Court No.1 (West Tripura, Agartala) in connection with West Agartala, Women’s P.S. Case No.2017WAW008 dated 14.02.2017 under Section 482(A)/323/34 of IPC (re-registered as PRC(W.P.) 149/17) whereby the learned Court below rejected the prayer of the investigating officer to add Section 307 of IPC. An additional prayer also has been made for re-investigation of the case. 2. Gravamen of the petitioner’s case is that she lodged an FIR against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband of sister-in-law i.e., respondent No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. On the basis of her complaint, the police registered an FIR as aforestated and started investigation. The petitioner Smt. Madhumita Debnath is 30 years old and being married on 9th May, 2014 she was blessed with a male baby. After 3/4 months of marriage, the husbands started to physically and mentally torture the petitioner for bringing cash from her parental house. She narrated many incidents of torture inflicted upon her by her husband and in-laws as stated above and once she was forced to withdraw Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only) from her GPF account and handed it over to her husband. On 13.02.2017 at about 22.00 hrs. her husband i.e., respondent No.2 being drunken asked the petitioner to bring cash of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh only) from her parental house, and when the petitioner refused, her husband attacked her firstly with slaps and then with fists and blows and subsequently gagged her throat to kill her and as the petitioner cried some of her neighbour came and rescued her. Being informed by someone, the police personnel came and rescued the petitioner from the clutches of her in laws. On 14.02.2017 the petitioner lodged a written ejahar to the officer-in-charge, West Agartala, women’s police station against her husband and in-laws. The police registered a case under Section 498(A)/323/34 of IPC. In course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 3. On 14.02.2017 the petitioner lodged a written ejahar to the officer-in-charge, West Agartala, women’s police station against her husband and in-laws. The police registered a case under Section 498(A)/323/34 of IPC. In course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 3. On 29.03.2017 the investigating officer of the case made a prayer before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.1, West Tripura for adding Section 307 of IPC since he found necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 307 of IPC as transpired from the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. of the petitioner-victim and other materials on record. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 29.03.2017 rejected the prayer of the investigating officer inter alia on the ground that the injuries of the petitioner were simple in nature. 5. Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State of Tripura, Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.7. Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel together with Mr. S. Rahaman, learned counsel and Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, but at the time of hearing none of the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are found on call. This Court vide its order dated 20.04.2018 had made an observation that on the returnable date there would be an initiative to hear the matter finally but due to impleadment of Sub-Inspector, Ms. Mamataj Hasina as respondent No.7, the matter could not be heard on the returnable date. On 20.08.2018 Mr. S. Rahaman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 prayed for accommodation and on the basis of his prayer the matter was listed on 24.09.2018. But on call they were not available and in absence of any prayer for adjournment this Court has decided to dispose of the case on merit. 6. On 20.08.2018 Mr. S. Rahaman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 prayed for accommodation and on the basis of his prayer the matter was listed on 24.09.2018. But on call they were not available and in absence of any prayer for adjournment this Court has decided to dispose of the case on merit. 6. The only point to be decided in this petition is as to whether the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class has committed an error in exercising his jurisdiction vested upon him and whether he has made a correct interpretation of Section 307 of IPC. 7. I have gone through the entire records, particularly, the injury report which is marked as Annexure-4 to the petition and the order dated 29.03.2017 (Annuxere-6 of the petition). From the injury report prepared by Doctor Nirupam Baidya of the Office of the Medical Superintendent, IGM Hospital, Agartala, Government of Tripura has passed an opinion that there are three injuries out of which two are abrasions having size of 1 cm x 1 cm (left side of face) and 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm [lateral side (outward) side of left elbow] and one bruise of size of 1 cm X 3 cm at the throat. It is opined that all the injuries are of simple in nature. 8. For convenience, it is necessary to extract the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1ST Class, in extenso :- “Present Miss. I. Dan 29.03.2017. Ld. A.P.P., Sri T. De Sarkar is present. I.O. has forwarded a report praying for adding Sec. 307 IPC. Keep with record. CD produced by I/O & perused the 164 statement of the complainant and the record. Allegations booked U/S 498(A)/323/34 IPC against the accused. Perused the Injury Report of the complainant Madhumita Debnath dated 04.03.2017 (IGM Hospital) The Injury Report of the complainant after said shows the nature of injuries simple. (out door basis treatment) Considering overall facts and scenario, prayer for adding Sec. 307 of IPC by I/O by petition dated 29.03.2017 is hereby rejected. Inform I/O. Ask I/O to expedite investigation and furnish report on 09.04.2017. Inform I.O. accordingly. Return the CD to the I/O in proper form. Sd/-(illegible) 29/03/17” 9. (out door basis treatment) Considering overall facts and scenario, prayer for adding Sec. 307 of IPC by I/O by petition dated 29.03.2017 is hereby rejected. Inform I/O. Ask I/O to expedite investigation and furnish report on 09.04.2017. Inform I.O. accordingly. Return the CD to the I/O in proper form. Sd/-(illegible) 29/03/17” 9. From the said order dated 29.03.2017, it is clear that the only ground for rejection of the prayer of addition of Section 307 IPC is the nature of the injuries which are simple in nature. After plain reading of the order, in my opinion the order dated 29.03.2017 is unsatisfactory and contrary to the legal principles. The learned Court below opined that as there was no injuries caused to the victim-complainant, a case under Section 307 of IPC is not made out. In my opinion, the said interpretation of the learned Court below has no legal strength. 10. Now, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 307 of IPC which 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 it 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. 11. After meticulous and careful reading of the said provision, I am of the opinion that Section 307 of IPC consists of two parts. The first part contemplates intention or knowledge relating to commission of murder and 2nd part contemplates the consequence of an act done towards it. So the receipt of an injury is not a prerequisite in convicting an accused under Section 307 of IPC. 12. I may gainfully refer a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parsuram Pandey v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 13 SCC 189 wherein inter alia in para-15 it was held : “To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present :- (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder ; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. Section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no offence 'of attempt to murder'. Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. Some of the relevant considerations may be the nature of the weapon used, the place where injuries were inflicted, the nature of the injuries and the circumstances in which the incident took place. On the evidence on record, where the prosecution has been able to prove only that the villagers have sustained injuries by indiscriminate firing and it was an open area with none of the injured nearby there is a complete lack of evidence of intention to cause such injuries for which the accused persons Parshuram and Bishram could have been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. Nature of the injuries sustained by the villagers is simple. None of the witnesses have stated that the fire arm causing injuries was being used by any particular accused for causing injuries to them. In fact the injured have not seen any of the accused persons using fire arms. There is no evidence about the distance from which the said two accused fired. The only evidence led by the prosecution is indiscriminate firing by Parshuram and Bishram which has caused simple injuries to the villagers. Amongst the injured villagers, only PW1 and DW-1 were examined. Thus this evidence does not constitute the intention or knowledge of the accused persons for committing the murder or doing of an act towards it. The evidence only shows that the villagers have sustained simple injuries. In the circumstances, we acquit Parshuram and Bishram under Section 307 of IPC.” 13. Again, in Prakash Chandra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. The evidence only shows that the villagers have sustained simple injuries. In the circumstances, we acquit Parshuram and Bishram under Section 307 of IPC.” 13. Again, in Prakash Chandra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2007) 13 SCC 134 (para 12) the Apex Court has held after perusal of Section 307 :- “12. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it is evident that first part thereof does not contemplate that receipt of any injury on the part of the victim is a pre-requisite for convicting an accused thereunder. In the event injuries are received, the second part of Section 307 would be attracted. The necessary ingredients for attracting the first part of Section 307 of the Penal Code is intention or knowledge. The legal position would be evident from the illustration (c) appended to the said provision which reads as under : “(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and, if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section” 14. The aforesaid authorities make it clear that for the proposition, intention of or knowledge relating to the commission of murder and the doing of an act towards it are the two ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 15. In the case in hand, there is clear assertion/complain of the complainant that on 13.02.2017 her husband i.e., the respondent No.2 tortured her by fists and blows and also gagged her throat with an intention to kill her. The injury report clearly points out that 1 cm x 3 cm bruise at throat of the complainant was caused “by hand or somebody attempted to strangulate her(illegible) complain of difficulty in deglutition”. So, in my opinion, the act is sufficient to attract, at least, the first part of Section 307 of IPC and by that act the complainant also suffered injuries, no matter, whether simple or grievous. Be that as it may, there is sufficient ingredient to incorporate/addition of Section 307 of IPC, particularly against the husband-respondent No.2 and the prayer of the investigating officer to add Section 307 of IPC should be allowed. 16. Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. Be that as it may, there is sufficient ingredient to incorporate/addition of Section 307 of IPC, particularly against the husband-respondent No.2 and the prayer of the investigating officer to add Section 307 of IPC should be allowed. 16. Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has also expressed his opinion that Section 307 of IPC may be added for fair trial of the case and to do complete justice to the complainant. The prayer for reinvestigation has not been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. In the light of above discussions on both facts and legal positions the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, West Tripura, Agartala is set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to add Section 307 of IPC as prayed for by the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the present criminal petition filed by the victim complainant, Smt. Madhumita Debnath, is allowed to the extent as indicated above. 18. With the above observations and directions, this criminal petition stands disposed.