Roopa Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali by which the learned trial court has framed the charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307/149 IPC.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the injury report of injured Heera Ram, he received five injuries in all, out of which two injuries are found to be grievous in nature that too on the non-vital part of the body. So far as injury No.1 which is caused on skull and injury No.5 which is caused on chest, both are found to be simple in nature by blunt weapon and the Doctor has also opined that none of the injuries is dangerous to life. In such circumstances, the charge framed against the petitioners for offence under Section 307/149 IPC is bad in the eye of law. Counsel submits that at the most the offence may not travel beyond 325 IPC.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant submit that the injured Heera Ram received five injuries in all, out of which two injuries i.e. one on skull and another on chest, were caused on vital part of the body. Counsel submits that these two injuries may be simple in nature but the accused inflicted injuries on the vital part of the body of the injured. In these circumstances, the charge framed against the petitioner is perfectly justified and the revision filed by the petitioners may be dismissed.

Heard the counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case.

The injured Heera in his statement has deposed that the accused persons came armed with lathies and iron rod and inflicted injuries upon him. On perusal of the injury report, it is apparent that the injured received total five injuries, out of which two injuries i.e. one on left forearm and another on left hand, which are found to be grievous in nature caused by blunt weapon. Injury No.1 on the skull and injury No.5 on the chest is found to be simply in nature. The Doctor has not opined that either of injuries is dangerous to life.

At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 307 & 308 IPC which 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.

Attempt to commit culpable homicide.--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 culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

It is not only the nature of the injury or the place of injury which is determinative of the fact whether the offence committed is one under Section 307 or Section 308 IPC. The medical evidence does not state that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the offence committed by the petitioners does not travel beyond Section 308 IPC, i.e., an attempt to cause culpable homicide not amounting to death. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the statement of prosecution witnesses including the medical report, I do not find any case to have been made out against the accused petitioners under Section 307 IPC, rather the case under Section 308 IPC is made out in this matter.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the charge framed by the trial court for offence under Section 307/149 IPC against the petitioners is bad in the eye of law. Instead of offence under Section 307/149 IPC, the trial court ought to have framed the charge against the petitioners for offence under Section 308/149 IPC. The rest of the charges framed by the trial court is not required to be interfered with. The trial court is directed to re-frame the charges against the petitioners.

With this modification, the revision petition is partly allowed.

Stay application is also decided.