Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 115 (RAJ)

Bhalla Ram S/o Farsa Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2024-01-17

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Revision petition No. 657/2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 32/23 whereby, the learned court below framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 332, 336, 353, 307/34 IPC and Section 50C/177, 100(2)/177 of Central Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Revision Petition No. 658/2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 32/23 whereby, the learned court below framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 332, 336, 353, 307/34 IPC and Section 50C/177, 100(2)/177 of Central Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Sharwan Singh filed a written report before the SHO, Police Station, Transport Nagar, Pali stating therein that on 04.08.2022, he received an information from Police Control room to stop a Bolero Camper vehicle being driven at a high speed. Accordingly, a police barricade was laid and the driver of the vehicle was signalled to stop, but the driver with an intention to kill the team members, tried to run over and hit the barricade. 4. On this report, the police registered a case and started investigation. After due investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioners. Thereafter, the case was committed for trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur where the learned trial court framed the charges against the present petitioner for the offence mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioner as the complainant did not receive any grievous injury on any vital parts. As per the statement of the complainant, an attempt was made by the petitioner but no serious injury was received by the complainant. It is argued that petitioner Ashok Kumar was driving the vehicle and other co-accused were sitting besides him in the vehicle. As per injury reports of the injured, only pain has been mentioned in the body of injured, therefore, the trial court has committed an error in framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC. 6. It is argued that petitioner Ashok Kumar was driving the vehicle and other co-accused were sitting besides him in the vehicle. As per injury reports of the injured, only pain has been mentioned in the body of injured, therefore, the trial court has committed an error in framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner ran over the blockade and wanted to cause bodily injury to the complainant, therefore, the trial court has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC and all other questions raised with regard to the present case are to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. Further it is settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of powers conferred under Section 397 Cr.P.C is very limited. 7. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From the perusal of documents on record, it is evident from the injury reports of the injured that no grievous injuries have been caused to the injured. The injured Pramod Kumar and Rakesh Kumar had pain in the body and received simple injuries. As per the statement of the witnesses, the accused although wanted to inflict injury upon the complainant but no injury was received by the complainant. 9. Section 307 of the IPC titled as "Attempt to murder" 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." 10. Section 307 of IPC, requires the commission of an overt act with intention or knowledge that if his act had caused death it would amount to murder. The second part of Section 307 of IPC prescribes punishment, if hurt is caused. 11. Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Parsuram Pandey & Ors. Section 307 of IPC, requires the commission of an overt act with intention or knowledge that if his act had caused death it would amount to murder. The second part of Section 307 of IPC prescribes punishment, if hurt is caused. 11. Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Parsuram Pandey & Ors. vs. State of Bihar : (2004) 13 SCC 189 ) has held as under :- “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. The 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.” 12. The Guahati High Court in a similar case of Jhumarmal Dudharia (supra) has held as under :- “In my view while considering as to whether the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code has been established or not, the Court is bound to consider the evidence to find out as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish the intention or knowledge as contemplated under the said section. He has also to consider the nature of the act, namely as to whether the act was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability case (a) death or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” 13. He has also to consider the nature of the act, namely as to whether the act was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability case (a) death or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” 13. Thus, the 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 the Indian Penal Code, and the intention is inferred from various considerations i.e. the nature of the weapon, the part of the body chosen for inflicting injuries and the nature of injuries and the circumstances in which incident took place. Since the two ingredients necessary for attracting Sec. 307 IPC are missing, therefore, the learned trial court has committed an error in framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC. 14. Accordingly, the revision petitions are partly allowed and the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 32/2023 to the extent of framing charge for offence under Section 307/34 IPC is set aside. The learned court below shall pass appropriate order for transferring the case to the concerned judicial magistrate under Section 228 Cr.P.C for trial in accordance with law.