Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1931 OF 2009
Champa Lal Dhakar .. Appellant
Versus
Naval Singh Rajput & Ors. .. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
dated 1.2.2008 in Criminal Revision No. 830 of 2007, by which
the High Court has partly allowed the said Revision Application
preferred by the respondents herein – original Accused and has
set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court framing the
charge under Section 307 of the IPC, the original Complainant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND has preferred the present appeal.
Date: 2019.01.04
16:26:42 IST
Reason:
2
2. That the Appellant herein – original Complainant lodged a
FIR against the original Accused for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 451, 325/149, 307/149, 294/149 and 506/149 of the
IPC. That the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District
Vidisha in S.T. No. 197 of 2005 framed the charge against the
original Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 451, 325/149, 307/149, 294/149 and 506/149 of the IPC.
That feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha framing
the charge against the original Accused for the aforesaid offences,
the accused preferred the Revision Application before the High
Court, being Criminal Revision Application No. 830 of 2007.
Having noticed the injuries sustained by the complainant and as
it was found that no case is made out for the offence punishable
under Section 307 of the IPC, the High Court by the impugned
judgment and order has partly allowed the said Revision
Application and has quashed and set aside the order passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to framing of
the charge under Section 307 of the IPC and has directed the
learned trial Court to reconsider its order with regard to framing
of the charge and take further steps in accordance with law. By
3
passing the impugned order, the High Court was of the opinion
that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering
the material on record, more particularly, the injuries sustained
by the complainant, a charge under Section 325 of the IPC ought
to have been framed.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court in quashing and
setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court with
regard to framing of the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, the
original Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
Complainant has vehemently submitted that, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a
manifest error in quashing and setting aside the order passed by
the learned trial Court framing charge under Section 307 of the
IPC.
3.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Appellant herein–original Complainant that, in
fact, approximately 17 to 18 persons attacked and beaten the
complainant with an intention to commit murder and, therefore,
the learned trial Court rightly framed the charge against the
4
accused persons for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC. It
is submitted that, therefore, when the learned trial Court
exercised the discretion/powers judiciously, the High Court has
committed an error in quashing and setting aside the order
passed by the learned trial Court in exercise of its Revisional
Jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original Accused
has supported the order passed by the trial Court.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at
length. We have also perused and considered the material on
record, more particularly, the injuries sustained by the original
Complainant. Considering the material/evidence on record, we
have noticed that the complainant sustained injuries on the nose
and fracture of the nasal bone was found. That the case may fall
within the grievous hurt, but it cannot be said that even, prima
facie, a case is made out for the offence under Section 307 of the
IPC. Section 307 of the IPC reads as under:
.—Whoever does any
“307. Attempt to murder
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;
5
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.”
6. Considering the material/evidence on record and the
medical certificate and the injuries sustained by the complainant,
it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was to cause
death of the complainant. Therefore, as rightly observed by the
High Court, a charge under Section 325/149 ought to have been
framed. Therefore, the High Court has not committed any error
in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court insofar as
framing the charge under Section 307 of the IPC. We are in
complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and
is accordingly dismissed.
……………………………………J.
(D. Y. CHANDRACHUD)
……………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
New Delhi,
January 4, 2019.