Om Suman vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3044 Kant

                               1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5325 OF 2021

BETWEEN

OM SUMAN
S/O UTTAM JANA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO.20/3, ANJANADRINAGAR
7TH CROSS, SHETTIHALLI
BANGALORE.
                                          ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AKRAM PASHA K., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        BY BAGALAGUNTE P S
        BANGALORE
        REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
        HIGH COURT COMPLEX
        BENGALURU - 560 001

2.      ANIL KUMAR
        S/O GOVINDAPPA
        AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
        R/AT NO.73, 4TH MAIN
        MARUTHI EXTENSION
        KAMAKSHIPALYA
        BENGALURU - 560 079
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.J. ROHITH, HCGP)
                                   2
      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
S.C.NO.39/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE P/U/S 353, 307 OF IPC AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
PASS ANY ORDER COMMENSURATING WITH THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

     THIS PETITION COMING FOR ADMISSION, ON THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Learned HCGP takes notice for the respondent-State.

Though this matter has come up for admission and hearing on

I.A.No1/2021, with the consent of learned counsel for the

parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section

482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order passed by the LX

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-61),

Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for short)

in S.C. No.39/2019 for having dismissed the application filed

by the petitioner under Section 227 of IPC.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent - State and

perused the material on record.

4. The case of the petitioner is that one Anil Kumar,

respondent No.2 herein residing at Mahalakshmi Layout has

filed a complaint before the Bagalagunte Police Station on

15.01.2018 alleging that a missing complaint of a girl was

registered in Crime No.21/2018. Trying to catch the accused,

he went to Shettihalli and with the help of the parents of the

victim girl when he was searching the accused, the accused-

petitioner came in a motor bike near Anjanadri Layout

between 9.30 am to 10 a.m. Immediately, he tried to stop the

vehicle by showing signal, but the accused did not stop and

obstructed the complainant from discharging his official duty

and caused the injuries. When the complainant fell down on

the ground, with an intention to commit his murder, the

petitioner-accused rode the motor bike over the complainant

and thereafter, the accused tried to escape. The petitioner is

also said to have fallen down from the Bike. Then, the

petitioner-accused was apprehended and was taken to the

Hospital.

5. After registering the case by the Police, the

complainant stated that the petitioner was attempting to

commit his murder. Hence, the complainant has prayed for

taking necessary action against the petitioner-accused. After

registration of the case, the Police filed FIR for the offence

punishable under Sections 307 and 353 of IPC. The

investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.

The case was committed to the trial Court. The petitioner had

filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. praying to

discharge him from the charges. The same was rejected by

the trial Court by the impugned order dated 02.07.2021.

Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously

contended that looking to the injuries sustained by the

complainant which are simple in nature, there was no intention

by the petitioner to commit the murder of the complainant. Of

course the petitioner might have obstructed the complainant

from discharging his duties, but he had no intention of

committing his murder. The ingredients of the complaint will

not attract Section 307 of IPC from framing the charges. The

trial Court committed an error in dismissing the discharge

application and hence, he prayed for allowing the petition to

discharge the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable

under Section 307 of IPC.

7. Per contra, learned HCGP has seriously objected

and contended that for the purpose of attracting Section 307

of IPC, injury is immaterial and only the intention has to be

considered. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel

for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it is

evident that admittedly, since the girl was missing, the

complainant was in search of the accused. When the

complainant was proceeding towards Anjanadri layout

between 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. on 15.01.2018, the

complainant found the accused coming in a motor bike. In

order to apprehend or arrest the petitioner in the said case, at

the time of stopping the vehicle, the accused is said to have

tried to escape without stopping the vehicle and dashed

against the complainant. Due to which, the complainant has

sustained injuries and fell on the ground. The petitioner has

tried to ride the motor bike over the complainant, thereby

trying to commit the murder of the complainant.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

there was no intention of the petitioner to commit murder and

the injuries were also simple in nature. The wound certificate

of the complainant was also produced. There are three

injuries, which were all simple in nature. Learned counsel also

submitted that the accused has filed a private complaint

before the Police and examined the Doctor. Thereafter, the

XXXI Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru took cognizance of

the offence against the complainant and three others for

having causing grievous injuries to the petitioner and also

Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 506 read with Section 34 of

IPC. The Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence

against the complainant and others.

10. Looking into the case and counter case, the

injuries sustained by the petitioner and the complainant is an

admitted fact. Now the question that arises for consideration is

as to whether the injury is necessary for consideration in order

to attract Section 307 of IPC or not. In this regard, the trial

Court has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court

in the case of 'Vasanth Virthu Jadhav Vs. State of

Maharashtra', reported in (1997) 2 Crimes 539 (Bombay),

wherein it has held that in order to attract Section 307 of IPC,

the intention or knowledge with which all was done is

important irrespective of the result. The provision of Section

307 of 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."

11. On bare reading of Section 307 of IPC, it is

evident that first part of the definition which shows that

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 and punishment would be

imprisonment which may extend upto ten years also shall also

be liable to pay fine and second part says if hurt is caused to

any person by such act, then the offender shall be either liable

to imprisonment of life or to such punishment as is

hereinbefore mentioned. Second part of definition of Section

307 of IPC clearly reveals that if hurt is caused, then the

punishment is imprisonment of life. Only intention or

knowledge is important.

12. In the present facts and circumstances of the

case, the injury may be simple in nature. As stated, accused

has caused injury by dashing the motor bike against the

complainant without stopping the vehicle. After complainant

falling down, the accused tried to ride the vehicle over the

complainant with an intention to commit the murder. Of

course, the injury may be simple in nature but the intention or

the knowledge is very important to attract for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The statement of the

complainant/injured cannot be disputed at this stage. Accused

might have sustained grievous injuries as he has also fallen

down as per the statement given by him, but in view of the

facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the

contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

Section 307 of IPC would not attract in case of the petitioner is

not sustainable.

13. On the other hand, in view of the findings, there

are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. There is no

error or illegality in the order of the trial Court dismissing the

application for the offence punishable under Section 227 of

IPC. The impugned order does not require any interference of

this Court.

Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021

does not survive for consideration.

SD/-

JUDGE

Mds.