CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Jaipal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 2 August 2010 · Citation: (2011) 1 ACR 575

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C. Agarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 308, 323, 504, 506
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 2942 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 355 words

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2.

This criminal revision is directed against order dated 19th July, 2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 3, Gautam Buddh Nagar in S.T. No. 350 of 2010 State v. Jai Pal and Ors. arising out of Crime No. 147 of 2009. P.S. Jahangirpur, distrcit Gautam Buddh Nagar whereby charge under Sections 308, 504 and 506, I.P.C. was framed against the revisionists.

3.

Learned Counsel for the revisionists submitted that all the three injuries sustained by injured Raj Pal Singh were found to be simple and thus offence u/s 308, I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out and the case is covered by Section 323, I.P.C. only. The contention is that the learned trial court committed illegality in framing the charge u/s 308, I.P.C?

4.

Learned A.G.A. submitted that on the basis of material on record, charge u/s 308, I.P.C. is made out.

5.

In the F.I.R., it has been mentioned that on 22.7.2009 at about 11:30 a.m., accused Jaipal called Raj Pal Singh, father of the complainant. When Raj Pal Singh went there, Jaipal gave spade blows on his head. On medical examination, eight injuries were found on the person of the injured, out of which, three, injuries were on head. Even spade blows on the head of the injured prima facie reveal that intention of the revisionists was to cause atleast such an injury which could cause death. Though the accused may not have any intention to cause death, but such knowledge can be attributed to the accused that causing injury on head by a spade might cause death of the injured. It is immaterial whether on medical examination such injuries were found simple.

6.

On a careful perusal of the material on record, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial court framing charge u/s 308, I.P.C. Whether the offence u/s 308, I.P.C. is made out or not, it shall be finally decided by the trial court after evidence.

7.

The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.