Parmal Singh and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

G.D. Saxena, J.—This revision petition u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 has been preferred by the accused/petitioners having been aggrieved by an order dated 3rd January 2013 issued in Sessions Case No. 530/2012 by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior (M.P.), framing thereby charges against the petitioners/accused for commission of offences punishable u/s 294, 336, 506 Part-II and 307 of I.P.C. and in alternative u/s 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. Bare facts necessary for the decision of this revision petition are that on 14th July 2012 at about 10 a.m., at B.P. City, village Padampur, complainant Ashok Singh went to his field situated in the same village. It is alleged that at that juncture all the accused namely, Sonu, Parmal, Vidyaram, Mukesh armed with their guns reached on the spot and hurled abuses to him. When the complainant objected and restrained the accused, they started firing from their arms with an intention to kill him. However, the complainant somehow saved himself. One of the bullets hit to his Scorpio Car. The other vehicles were also badly damaged by the accused with pelting stones. When other persons from village rushed to the spot, the accused fled away after threatening the complainant to kill in the event of lodging report with the police. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant against the accused. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and after committal, the trial was commenced. The learned trial Judge after considering the statements and the material available on record, framed the charges against the accused for the alleged offences as mentioned above, hence, this revision.

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused is that on perusal of the FIR, case-diary statements of the victim and other witnesses, no case for framing of charges against the petitioners is made out. It is argued that from perusal of material available on record it is implicit that all accused were present on the spot. They fired shots only with an intention to endanger human life or for personal safety of the complainant and never attempted to cause death of the complainant. They did not intent to fire at the complainant nor caused any injury to him. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the approach of the learned trial court appears to be wholly mechanical and therefore, the order based on such approach is liable to be set aside. On these premised submissions, it is prayed that by allowing the petition, the charges framed against the accused may be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the aforesaid prayer and supported the order of framing of charges by the trial court. It is submitted that all accused went to the spot with common intention to cause death of complainant and they also fired with their guns. So, the alleged act of the accused speaks in itself that they came with a common motive to cause death of the complainant. It is thus submitted that the ingredients of offence punishable u/s 307 of I.P.C. under these circumstances clearly appear and in that eventuality, the learned trial Judge has rightly framed the charge u/s 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. against the accused alongwith other charges. Therefore, it is prayed that the revision petition of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Also perused the material placed on record and the law applicable to the case.

Now, this court has to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the order challenged in the revision.

In order that a person may be guilty of attempt to murder, the following two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention or knowledge of committing murder; (b) the doing of an act towards it. For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or knowledge, and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention.

In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kashirao and Others, : the Hon. Apex Court has held as follows:--

The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence u/s 307 are:

(i) that the death of a human being was attempted;

(ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and

(iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.

In offence u/s 307 all the ingredients of the offence of murder are present except the death of the victim. For the application of Section 307, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 IPC. But since sentence and fine have been maintained, alteration of conviction notwithstanding no modification of sentence need be made.

Then, while framing charges, what are the relevant factors to be considered for proceeding against the accused, the Hon. Apex Court in the case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and Another, , observed as under:--

If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.

The scope of Section 227 of the Code was well considered long back in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, , wherein following has been held:

...Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial....

Moreover, in the case of Tej Bir and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, it held that at the stage of framing of charges, the High court should not exercise its power of revision by way of quashing the charges by confining its attention only to the recitals in the FIR as was held.

In the light of the above, on examining the factual aspects of the present case and perusing the evidence on record, the F.I.R. lodged and case-diary statements of the witnesses filed with charge sheet, it clearly reveals that the accused with intention to kill the complainant fired by their guns. The complainant somehow escaped and the bullet hit his car. It has to be kept in mind that to constitute the offence, no injury need be caused to the victim and u/s 307 I.P.C. the court has to see whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute the murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". So, all ingredients as mentioned in the Section of 307 of I.P.C. are appearing from the charge sheet and material on record. Hence, in the light of legal and factual aspect, the charges framed u/s 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. with other offences under sections 294, 336 and 506 Part-II of I.P.C. against the petitioners are found to be well established. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is warranted by this court under revisional jurisdiction. By maintaining the order impugned, the revision is hereby dismissed. The prosecution for offences against all the accused shall continue as per provisions of law.