Delhi High Court
Bhanwar Singh & Ors. vs State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 30 August, 2018
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:30.08.2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 323/2017
BHANWAR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Kochar with Mr. Dollar
Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for the
State.
SI Shailendra Kumar Singh, PS
Gokulpuri.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
30.08.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.REV.P. 323/2017 & Crl.M.A.7299/2017 (stay)
1. The petitioners impugn order dated 28.01.2017, whereby,
charge, inter alia, under Section 307 Indian Penal Code (IPC for
short) has been framed against the petitioners.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant had
suspected that his wife was having an affair with one of the co-
accused and, as such, there was enmity between them. It is further
contended that at 9 am in the morning, when he was walking by his
house, the petitioners are alleged to have made an allegation against
him of misbehaving with the sister of the petitioner No.3. Thereafter,
it is alleged that two of the petitioners brought iron rods and two of
the petitioners had wooden sticks in their hands, they held him and
thereafter assaulted him, because of which, he sustained injuries on
his head, face and body.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners
have been falsely implicated and from a bare perusal of the FIR and
the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation, no
offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. He further submits that
even charge sheet was filed only under Section 308 IPC. However, by
the impugned order, the petitioner has been charged with, inter alia,
Section 307 IPC.
4. Learned APP for the State submits that as per the medical
report, since injury was sustained on the forehead, charges have
rightly been framed under Section 307 IPC. She further submits that
the fact that they were armed with sticks and iron rod was reason
enough for the court to frame charges under Section 307 IPC.
5. Section 307 IPC 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.
Attempts by life convicts.--[When any person offending under
this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if
hurt is caused, be punished with death.]"
6. For an act to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC, the
requirement is that such act should be done with the intention or
knowledge that if such act caused death, the person would be guilty of
murder.
7. For constituting an offence of murder, the ingredients of
Section 300 IPC would have to be satisfied.
8. Section 300 IPC reads as under:-
"300. Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
(Secondly) --If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
(Thirdly) --If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or--
(Fourthly) --If the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
9. Section 300 IPC enumerates four situations, one where an act is
done with the intention of causing death; second where the act is done
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows
is likely to cause death of the person to whom the harm is caused,
thirdly, if the act is done with the intention of causing bodily injury
and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death and fourthly, if the person
committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death. Such an act if results in death, would constitute the
offence of murder, as defined under Section 300 IPC, however, if
death does not occur, such act would constitute an offence of attempt
to murder under Section 307 IPC.
10. For an act to amount to an "attempt" the person must have
done all that said person intended to do still the desired result is not
achieved because of factors beyond his control. To constitute an
attempt of an offence, the actor must have done everything that the
actor intended to do, to achieve the desired result, still the result does
not occur.
11. To constitute the offence of "an attempt to murder", the
accused should have acted in the manner as enumerated in section 300
IPC, but death does not occur because of factors beyond the control of
the accused.
12. Reading of Section 307 IPC with Section 300 IPC shows that if
a person does the acts referred to in Section 300 IPC, with such
intention or knowledge that if such act results in the desired
consequence of the action of the perpetuator (i.e. death), said person
can be charged with an attempt of murder. For attempt to be
complete, insofar the actor is concerned, he should have done all that
was within his power and ability for the purposes of achieving the
desired result. If death occurs, offence of murder is complete, if death
does not occur, it would be an attempt under Section 307 IPC.
13. The MLC shows that the nature of injuries sustained is simple.
The injuries sustained by the victim, as mentioned in the MLC, are,
inter alia, laceration on the forehead right side, laceration on the
central part of upper lip, multiple abrasions and contusion, injuries to
upper arm and forearm, both chest and back.
14. The medical report does not substantiate the contentions of the
learned APP for the State and does not show that the injuries sustained
are of nature as would satisfy the requirements of Section 300 IPC.
Merely because wooden sticks and iron rods are alleged to have been
used, would not in itself, be sufficient for framing of charge under
Section 307 IPC. Merely because injuries are caused on the forehead
would not in itself be sufficient to frame a charge under Section 307
IPC. Trial Court, while framing charge is also to examine as to what
are the nature of injuries sustained and/or attempted to be inflicted.
15. There is apparently no fracture sustained by the victim of any
vital bone or injury to any vital organ. The injury sustained on the
forehead is laceration of 3 x 0.5 cm, which in the opinion of the doctor
is simple in nature. The record comprising of inter alia the MLC and
the statement of witnesses and the injured does not justify framing of
charge under Section 307 IPC.
16. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.01.2017 is
set aside to the limited extent that it frames a charge against the
accused-petitioners under Section 307 IPC. The matter is remitted to
the Trial Court to reframe an appropriate charge. Trial Court shall
appropriately reframe the charge in view of the observations
contained herein.
17. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
18. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
AUGUST 30, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
