Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:414
1 CRR-6283-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6283 of 2024
DHARMENDRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Pathak - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Anurag Sharma - Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed against the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by Sessions Judge,
Ashoknagar in ST No.63/2023 by which application filed by petitioners for
their discharge has been rejected and charges have been framed against
Ashok, Sudip and Dharmendra for offence under Sections 294, 147, 148,
307/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 506 (2) of IPC and charges have
been framed against Bundel Singh, Vishveer Singh, Pinki, Ramsakhi Bai and
Neetu under Sections 294, 147, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 506
(2) of IPC.
2 . It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that initially as per the
MLC of Bhagwat Singh, incised wound on the head of victim was described
as dangerous to life. Later on, on the application filed by petitioners, a
Medical Board was constituted who found that injuries sustained by Bhagwat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:414
2 CRR-6283-2024
Singh were simple in nature. It is submitted that since Bhagwat Singh had
suffered simple hurt on his head therefore, charge under Section 307 or
307/149 of IPC should not be framed.
3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioners.
4. 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.
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.]"
5. From plain reading of aforesaid section, it is clear that it is in two
parts:-
The first part deals with the situation where no injury is caused to the
complainant and; second part deals with injury which may be in the nature of
hurt. Hurt has been defined under Section 319 of IPC.
6 . Therefore, it is clear that merely because the Medical Board had
opined that injuries sustained by Bhagwat Singh were simple in nature would
not take out the case out of the purview of Section 307 of IPC provided
injuries were caused with knowledge and intention. Incised wound was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:414
3 CRR-6283-2024
found on the head of Bhagwat Singh. Head is a vital part of the body,
therefore, intention and knowledge can be deciphered from the act of the
accused. The nature of injury is not a decisive factor to find out as to whether
an offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out or not.
7. This Court in the case of (Mrinal Sharma and another Vs. State of
M.P. decided on 14.07.2022 in Cr.A. No.522/2022) has held as under:-
"12. The Supreme Court in the case of Vasant Vithu Jadhav
Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2004) 9 SCC 31 has
held intention to kill or knowledge that death will be
caused, is an essential ingredient. It is not necessary that
bodily injury capable of causing death should have been
inflicted.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Jage Ram and others
Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366 has
held that for the purposes of conviction under Section 307
of IPC, the prosecution has to establish the intention to
commit murder and act done by the accused. To justify the
conviction under Section 307 of IPC, it is not essential that
fatal injury capable of causing death should have been
caused. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from
the circumstances, like the nature of weapon used, words
used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of
the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused,
nature of injury and severity of blows given etc.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Kanha alias Omprakash reported in (2019) 3 SCC 605 has
held as under:-
"13. The above judgments of this Court lead us
to the conclusion that proof of grievous or
lifethreatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the
offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code.
The intention of the accused can be ascertained
from the actual injury, if any, as well as from
surrounding circumstances. Among other
things, the nature of the weapon used and the
severity of the blows inflicted can be considered
to infer intent.
15. In the present case, four lacerated wounds were found
on the head of the injured. The Supreme Court in the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:414
4 CRR-6283-2024
of Sadakat Kotwar and another Vs. The State of Jharkhand
by judgment dated 12/11/2021 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.1316/2021 has held as under:-
"4.1 ......As the deadly weapon has been used
causing the injury near the chest and stomach
which can be said to be on vital part of the body,
the appellants have been rightly convicted for
the offence under Section 307 read with Section
34 of the IPC. As observed and held by this
Court in catena of decisions nobody can enter
into the mind of the accused and his intention
has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part
of the body chosen for assault and the nature of
the injury caused. Considering the case on hand
on the aforesaid principles, when the deadly
weapon - dagger has been used, there was a stab
injury on the stomach and near the chest which
can be said to be on the vital part of the body
and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly
held that the appellants have committed the
offence under Section 307 IPC. 5. We are in
complete agreement with the view taken by the
learned Trial Court as well as the High Court.
Now so far as the reliance placed upon the
decision of this Court in Jai Narain Mishra and
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 762 is
concerned, on facts such decision shall not be
applicable more particularly considering the
subsequent decisions as well as the weapon
used, nature of injuries caused on the vital part
of the body."
8 . Furthermore, the Medical Board had examined the complainant
after one month, therefore, Trial Court was right in holding that there must
have been a substaintive improvement in the injury sustained by
complainant. Furthermore, for framing charges, the possibility of conviction
is not the criteria. The grave suspicion that accused might have committed an
offence is sufficient to frame charges.
9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:414
5 CRR-6283-2024
Trial Court did not commit any mistake by framing charges under Section
307 of IPC or other alternative offence under Section 307/149 of IPC. No
other argument is advanced by counsel for petitioners.
10. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Rashid
