Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayan Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23321
1 CRR-1605-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1605 of 2025
NARAYAN PATIDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manjesh Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Neelu Khetra G.A appearing on behalf of Advocate
General.
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 397 r/w section 401 &
482 of the Cr.P.C (section 438 r/w section 442 & 528 of BNSS,
2023) is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2025 in
S.T.No.13/2025 by 3rd ASJ, Sardarpur, district Dhar whereby
charges under sections 294, 307 alternatively 324 of the IPC and
section 25 (IB)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 have been framed against
the revision petitioner in a case arising out of crime no.329/2024
registered at PS Amjhera, district Dhar.
2. Facts in brief are that crime no.329/2024 registered at PS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23321
2 CRR-1605-2025
Amjhera, district Dhar was registered under sections 294 & 323 of
the IPC on the report of injured Narayan Patidar s/o Balaram Patidar
regarding incident dated 29.06.2024 at 9.30 p.m in which it was
stated that Narayan Patidar s/o Balaram Patidar along with his
nephew Hiralal s/o Rameshwar Patidar were going from godown to
their house situated in village Morgaon, PS Amjhera, district Dhar
and near the godown they met Narayan s/o Rameshwar Patidar who
uttered abusive words to complainant Narayan and his nephew
Hiralal Patidar and when they objected to the abusive words, then
Narayan s/o Rameshwar Patidar assaulted with faliya and caused
injury on the head of Narayan s/o Balaram Patidar. Narayan s/o
Balaram Patidar was medically examined at a community health
centre, Amjhera and thereafter he was taken to Mital Medical Care
and Hospital, Private Ltd., Dhar where he was treated from
30.06.2024 to 03.07.2024. A faliya of 12 inch iron blade of 1.5 inch
width and attached with a 20 inch bamboo stick handle covered by a
wire was recovered from the petitioner/accused on 15.10.2024.
After necessary query from Medical Officer, Community Health
Centre, Amjhera, the opinion of Additional District Prosecution
Officer, charges under section 307 of the IPC and section 25(1B)(b)
of the Arms Act, 1959 were added.
3. The trial court framed the charges as mentioned in para-1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23321
3 CRR-1605-2025
of the judgment and this revision petition is preferred on the ground
that injuries to Narayan s/o Balaram Patidar is simple in nature.
There is no repeat blow on the complainant/victim. The opinion
from Medical Officer has been obtained on 15.07.2024 only in order
to implicate the petitioner by noting that the injury was dangerous to
life due to excessive blood loss whereas enquiry, medical
documents and CT scan of the complainant reveal the injury to be
simple in nature. Accordingly, framing of charge under section 307
of the IPC is erroneous.
4. Heard.
5. Counsel for the victim/complainant has opposed the
revision petition. Counsel for the State has also opposed the
revision petition.
6. Perused the report submitted under section 173(2) of the
Cr.P.C, 1973 and the documents submitted along with the final
report.
7. The following two ingredients are necessary to make out
an offence under section 307 of the IPC:-
(a) Knowledge or intention that by his act, if murder is
caused then he would be guilty of murder;
(b) Does any act towards commission of that offence.
8. Although the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23321
4 CRR-1605-2025
Vs. Saleem reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554, has held in para 66 & 67
as under:-
66. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
12. To justify a conviction under this section, it is
not essential that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted. Although the
nature of injury actually caused may often give
considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to
the intention of the accused, such intention may also
be deduced from other circumstances, and may
even, in some cases, be ascertained without any
reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes
a distinction between an act of the accused and its
result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by
any result so far as the person assaulted is
concerned, but still there may be cases in which the
culprit would be liable under this section. It is not
necessary that the injury actually caused to the
victim of the assault should be sufficient under
ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the
person assaulted. What the court has to see is
whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the section.An attempt
in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate
act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent
coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under
Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with
some overt act in execution thereof. It is not
essential that bodily injury capable of causing death
should have been inflicted. The section makes a
distinction between the act of the accused and its
result, if any. The court has to see whether the act,
irrespective of its result, was done with the intention
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23321
5 CRR-1605-2025
or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in
the section. Therefore, an accused charged under
Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because
the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the
nature of a simple hurt.
14. This position was highlighted in State of
Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, Girija Shankar
v. State of U.P. and R. Prakash v. State of
Karnataka.
15. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar it was observed
in para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually
inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ
of the victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the
act out of the purview of Section 307.
16. Whether there was intention to kill or
knowledge that death will be caused is a question of
fact and would depend on the facts of a given case.
The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the
accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule
out application of Section 307 IPC. The
determinative question is the intention or
knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of
the injury. The basic difference between Sections
333 and 325 IPC is that Section 325 gets attracted
where grievous hurt is caused whereas Section 333
gets attracted if such hurt is caused to a public
servant.
67. Thus, if the accused has a knowledge or intention that
by his act, if murder is caused then he would be guilty of
murder and does any act towards commission of that
offence, then such act would be sufficient to make out an
offence under Section 307 of IPC, irrespective of nature
of injury."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23321
6 CRR-1605-2025
9. In the present case, the injury found on the body of the
victim is described as incised and looking like lacerated wound of
approximate 8 x 2 x 1 cm. size of left parietal bone of skull by hard
and sharp object. No other fresh external injury was seen and after
CT Scan of the brain and head, it was reported that no bony fracture
and no intra cranial hemorrhage was seen and opined the nature of
the injury as simple. Further, it was opined that in case of excessive
blood flows, the injury could have been dangerous to life. In the
MLC conducted on 30.06.2024 or in the discharge card of Mittal
Medical Care and Hospital, Pvt. Ltd., Dhar there is no mention that
there was active bleeding from the wound. Only a single blow was
made due to exchange of words regarding land of village Bodla.
The statement of victim Narayan s/o Balaram Patidar or Hiralal s/o
Rameshwar Patidar does not mention that any words indicating his
intention to cause death were uttered. Accordingly, on the test as
laid down in the case of Salim (supra), the intention of the accused
to cause death of Narayan s/o Balaram cannot be deduced from the
injury caused or from other circumstances. Accordingly, framing of
charge under section 307 IPC does not withstand the test of law laid
down in Salim (supra) and this revision petition succeeds and
charge framed against the revision petitioner in second head
regarding section 307 of the IPC is set aside. Now the trial court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23321
7 CRR-1605-2025
shall proceed against the revision petitioner under the alternate
charge of section 324 of the IPC, as already framed, along with first
and third head of the charges. Trial court is directed to proceed
accordingly.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
