Pradeep Giri and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and Respondent No. 2 and learned AGA for Respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

This is a petition for quashing the order dated 17.9.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut in S.T. No. 260 of 2003, State v. Pradeep Giri and Anr., whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that the charges under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 307/34 and 506 IPC were liable to be framed against the applicants. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the learned trial Court had earlier framed a charge u/s 307 IPC on 25.8.2006 against the applicants but this Court (Hon''ble Vinod Prasad, J.) allowed the applicant''s application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and remanded the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration. Accordingly, the lower Court reconsidered the matter and passed the impugned order dated 17.9.2008.

The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the injured had sustained only one superficial injury on his hand, which was simple in nature, therefore, the charge u/s 307/34 IPC was not made out.

The learned Trial Court has passed an elaborate order holding that the facts and circumstances of the case fully justify framing of the charge u/s 307/34 IPC against the applicants. It may not be out of context to mention that at the stage of charge the learned trial Court was not required to write a detailed judgment and to record a final verdict. What was required from the trial Court was to see whether or not the charge u/s 307/34 IPC was made out from the materials on record. If the trial Court on considering the materials on record, arrived at the conclusion that charge u/s 307/34 IPC was made out, it is not open to the High Court to substitute its own judgment in exercise of inherent power.

In my opinion, it is well settled that to constitute an offence u/s 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the injury inflicted must be grievous or dangerous to life. It is sufficient to make out a case u/s 307 IPC if presence of an intent required by Section 307 IPC coupled with some overt act in execution there of is apparent from the record. It is not necessary that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted because Section 307 IPC makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act death had been caused, the person committing the act would have been guilty of murder.

The aforesaid preposition has also been laid down in the cases referred to in the impugned judgment but it is not necessary to repeat the same in this order.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 on the other hand, submitted that the summoning order u/s 307/34 IPC remained intact upto the Apex Court, therefore, framing of charge u/s 307/34 IPC can not be said to be without any basis.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the Counsel for the parties, the contention that the charge u/s 307/34 IPC is well founded on the basis of materials on record and can not be said to be unwarranted in law. In my opinion, the petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The petition is dismissed. However, despite framing the charge u/s 307/34 IPC it will be open to the trial Court to see at the stage of final judgment whether or not the offence u/s 307/34 IPC is made out against the applicants.