Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 789 (KAR)

Om Suman S/o Uttam Jana v. State of Karnataka

2021-07-29

K.NATARAJAN

body2021
ORDER : 1. Learned HCGP takes notice for the respondent-State. Though this matter has come up for admission and hearing on I.A. No. 1/2021, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-61), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’ for short) in S.C. No. 39/2019 for having dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of IPC. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the material on record. 4. The case of the petitioner is that one Anil Kumar, respondent No. 2 herein residing at Mahalakshmi Layout has filed a complaint before the Bagalagunte Police Station on 15.01.2018 alleging that a missing complaint of a girl was registered in Crime No. 21/2018. Trying to catch the accused, he went to Shettihalli and with the help of the parents of the victim girl when he was searching the accused, the accusedpetitioner came in a motor bike near Anjanadri Layout between 9.30 am to 10 a.m. Immediately, he tried to stop the vehicle by showing signal, but the accused did not stop and obstructed the complainant from discharging his official duty and caused the injuries. When the complainant fell down on the ground, with an intention to commit his murder, the petitioner-accused rode the motor bike over the complainant and thereafter, the accused tried to escape. The petitioner is also said to have fallen down from the Bike. Then, the petitioner-accused was apprehended and was taken to the Hospital. 5. After registering the case by the Police, the complainant stated that the petitioner was attempting to commit his murder. Hence, the complainant has prayed for taking necessary action against the petitioner-accused. After registration of the case, the Police filed FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 353 of IPC. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The case was committed to the trial Court. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. praying to discharge him from the charges. The same was rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 02.07.2021. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The case was committed to the trial Court. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. praying to discharge him from the charges. The same was rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 02.07.2021. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that looking to the injuries sustained by the complainant which are simple in nature, there was no intention by the petitioner to commit the murder of the complainant. Of course the petitioner might have obstructed the complainant from discharging his duties, but he had no intention of committing his murder. The ingredients of the complaint will not attract Section 307 of IPC from framing the charges. The trial Court committed an error in dismissing the discharge application and hence, he prayed for allowing the petition to discharge the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP has seriously objected and contended that for the purpose of attracting Section 307 of IPC, injury is immaterial and only the intention has to be considered. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that admittedly, since the girl was missing, the complainant was in search of the accused. When the complainant was proceeding towards Anjanadri layout between 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. on 15.01.2018, the complainant found the accused coming in a motor bike. In order to apprehend or arrest the petitioner in the said case, at the time of stopping the vehicle, the accused is said to have tried to escape without stopping the vehicle and dashed against the complainant. Due to which, the complainant has sustained injuries and fell on the ground. The petitioner has tried to ride the motor bike over the complainant, thereby trying to commit the murder of the complainant. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no intention of the petitioner to commit murder and the injuries were also simple in nature. The wound certificate of the complainant was also produced. There are three injuries, which were all simple in nature. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no intention of the petitioner to commit murder and the injuries were also simple in nature. The wound certificate of the complainant was also produced. There are three injuries, which were all simple in nature. Learned counsel also submitted that the accused has filed a private complaint before the Police and examined the Doctor. Thereafter, the XXXI Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru took cognizance of the offence against the complainant and three others for having causing grievous injuries to the petitioner and also Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence against the complainant and others. 10. Looking into the case and counter case, the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the complainant is an admitted fact. Now the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the injury is necessary for consideration in order to attract Section 307 of IPC or not. In this regard, the trial Court has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vasanth Virthu Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 539 (Bom.) wherein it has held that in order to attract Section 307 of IPC, the intention or knowledge with which all was done is important irrespective of the result. The provision of Section 307 of IPC reads as under: “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.” 11. On bare reading of Section 307 of IPC, it is evident that first part of the definition which shows that 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 and punishment would be imprisonment which may extend upto ten years also shall also be liable to pay fine and second part says if hurt is caused to any person by such act, then the offender shall be either liable to imprisonment of life or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Second part of definition of Section 307 of IPC clearly reveals that if hurt is caused, then the punishment is imprisonment of life. Only intention or knowledge is important. 12. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the injury may be simple in nature. As stated, accused has caused injury by dashing the motor bike against the complainant without stopping the vehicle. After complainant falling down, the accused tried to ride the vehicle over the complainant with an intention to commit the murder. Of course, the injury may be simple in nature but the intention or the knowledge is very important to attract for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The statement of the complainant/injured cannot be disputed at this stage. Accused might have sustained grievous injuries as he has also fallen down as per the statement given by him, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 307 of IPC would not attract in case of the petitioner is not sustainable. 13. On the other hand, in view of the findings, there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. There is no error or illegality in the order of the trial Court dismissing the application for the offence punishable under Section 227 of IPC. The impugned order does not require any interference of this Court. 14. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed. 15. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A. No. 1/2021 does not survive for consideration.