Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akshay Kantilal Bam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
1 CRR-1483-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1483 of 2025
AKSHAY KANTILAL BAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Surendra Singh -Senior Advocate with Shri Raghvendra
Singh Raghuvanshi for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi -GA appearing on behalf of
Advocate General.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat-Advocate for the respondent [R-2].
Reserved on 11.08.2025
Pronounced on 31.10.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 438 r/w section 442 of the
BNSS, 2023 is preferred challenging the legality of the order dated
07.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) in S.T.No.315/2024 by 22nd ASJ,
Indore, whereby charge of 5th head in Annexure P/2 under section
307 r/w section 149 of the IPC has been framed against the revision
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
2 CRR-1483-2025
petitioners.
2. Facts in brief are that a crime no.581/2007 under sections
323, 294, 506, 336, 147, 148 & 149 of the IPC was registered at
police station Khajrana, District Indore on 04.10.2007 on the
information of Yunus Patel, respondent No.2 stating the incident
between 10 a.m to 4.15 p.m of 04.10.2007 at the agricultural land
situated between Kanadia bye-pass to Dawoodi Nagar, Indore within
the territorial jurisdiction of police station Khajrana, Indore. The
descriptions of the accused were mentioned in column no.7 of the
First Information Report as Kantilal Bam (revision petitioner no.2),
Akshay Kantilal Bam (revision petitioner no.1), Satveer Singh r/o
Vijay Nagar, Indore, Manoj, Sonu and their 8-10 associates.
Completing investigation, a report under section 173(2) of the
Cr.P.C, 1973 under sections 323, 294, 506, 147, 148, 149 and 435 of
the IPC was submitted against Kantilal Bam (revision petitioner
No.2), Akshay Kantilal Bam (revision petitioner no.1), Sohan Singh,
Manoj on 06.09.2014 before JMFC, Indore. The matter remained
pending for securing the presence of Satveer Singh, Sonu and
Manoj. Satveer Singh died and vide order dated 06.12.2021 a
perpetual warrant was issued against Sonu. On 11.01.2022 an
application under section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 was preferred by
respondent No.2 and he was permitted to engage a private lawyer to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
3 CRR-1483-2025
assist the prosecution and on 5th of April, 2024 an application was
preferred for framing of charges under sections 323, 506, 436, 307,
147, 148, 149 & 120-B of the IPC. Thereafter, vide order dated
24.04.2024, the JMFC, Indore recorded the finding that prima facie
record discloses the offence of section 307 of the IPC. The offence
under section 307 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions and committed the matter to the Sessions Judge, Indore in
RCT No.3731626 of 2014.
3. The order dated 24.04.2024 in RCT No.3731626 of 2014
was challenged through criminal revision no.259 of 2024 and vide
order dated 01.08.2024, the 22nd ASJ, Indore dismissed the revision
petition.
4. Vide order dated 07.03.2025 in ST No.315/2024, the 22nd
ASJ, Indore framed the charges under sections 447, 148, 323(3
counts) alternatively 323 r/w section 149 (3 counts), 435, 307 r/w
section 149 and 506 Part-II of the IPC.
5. Seeking quashment of commital order of JMFC, Indore
dated 24.04.2024 a miscellaneous criminal case no.43350/2024 was
filed before this Court and vide order dated 28.03.2025 the M.CR.C
No.43350/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Challenging the framing of charge under section 307 r/w
section 149 of the IPC vide head no.5 (Annexure P/2), this criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
4 CRR-1483-2025
revision has been preferred on the ground that in the contents of the
detailed FIR and detailed statements recorded under section 161 of
the Cr.P.C, 1973 no allegations of exhortation of firing with intent to
kill him were levelled by the respondent No.2. An exhaustive
investigation was conducted by the police and the allegations made
by the respondent No.2 were found false and the police did not
register the offence under section 307 of the IPC. After
investigation of the matter, the charge sheet also does not reflect the
offence of section 307 of the IPC.
7. It is further submitted that one Rinku, who was
accompanying respondent No.2 at the time of alleged firing has not
supported the prosecution case. Even Fakhru, uncle of respondent
No.2, who purportedly called the respondent No.2 by phone on the
date of incident has not supported the case of prosecution. The
police has not recorded their statement under section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. The allegations of exhortation and firing were made by the
respondent No.2 for the first time 12 days after the incident. In this
statement also, no explanation has been given by him regarding the
omission to state the factum of exhortation and firing. This delay is
fatal and conclusively proves the fact that a false case has been set
up against the petitioners. This false case was set up to put pressure
on the petitioners to withdraw the earlier FIR registered as Crime
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
5 CRR-1483-2025
No.580/2007 with same police station in the counter case in which
the respondent No.2 has been arrayed as an accused and petitioner
no.2 is witness in the said case. The fact that the allegations of
exhortation and firing are false is further established by the fact that
even though the supposed incident has taken place 04.10.2007, no
effort was made by respondent No.2 till the year 2024 to convert the
offence into section 307 of the IPC. Petitioner No.1 Akshay Kantilal
Bam has been declared as official candidate of Congress (I) party for
the elections in the year 2024. Due to political reasons, respondent
No.2 has filed the application for converting the offence under
section 307 of the IPC, 1860 against the petitioners.
8. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 succeeded in
this maneuver as the petitioner no.1 withdrew from the election. The
allegation of exhortation and firing have been made as a counterblast
to the earlier FIR lodged by Satbeer Singh against respondent No.2
on the basis of which he is being prosecuted. The trial court
committed error in law and fact in framing charge against the
petitioners under section 307 r/w section 149 of the IPC ignoring the
fact that even upon accepting the allegations to be true, no such
charge can be framed. The entire case is false attended by
malafides. The .12 bore gun has wrongly been seized in the present
FIR. The said gun was seized from the spot when co-accused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
6 CRR-1483-2025
Satveer Singh and few guards were assaulted by respondent No.2
and his colleagues regarding which crime no.580/2007 was
registered prior to the present FIR. The trial court failed to
appreciate the fact that the gun which is owned by Radhakishan are
there in the earlier FIR No.580/2007. The said gun does not belong
to Satveer and was returned to Radheshyam on supurdgi. The trial
court failed to appreciate that there is no other act against the
petitioner no.1 Akshay Kantilal Bam. The alleged weapon was not
sent to FSL and there is no report that it was fired recently. The trial
court erred in fact and law both in holding that whether the
complainant has made up the afterthought story by adding more facts
in the incident can be considered during trial only at the stage of
evidence and the allegations are not such that even upon accepting
the case as true the accused persons cannot be convicted.
9. Heard.
10. Counsel for the respondent No.1/State has opposed the
revision petition.
11. Counsel representing respondent No.2 has supported
framing of charge under section 307 r/w section 149 of the IPC and
argued on the strength of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Charan
Bansal and others -(2020) 2 SCC 290; Ashish Chadha vs. Asha
Kumari and another - (2012) 1 SCC 680; State of Bihar vs. Ramesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
7 CRR-1483-2025
Singh - (1977) 4 SCC 39; State of Maharashtra vs. Priya sharan
Maharaj and others - (1997) 4 SCC 393 & Hari Mohan Mandal vs.
State of Jharkhand - (2004) 12 SCC 220 that only grave suspicion is
enough for framing of charge and there is ample material brought on
record which creates a grave suspicion against the revision
petitioners attracting offence under section 307 r/w section 149 of
the IPC. Neither veracity and effect of evidence are not to be
meticulously judged at this stage nor is any weight to be attached to
the probable defence of the accused at the stage of framing of charge
and for applicability of section 307 of the IPC, the causing of bodily
injury is sine qua non.
12. On the contrary, counsel for the revision petitioners
heavily relied on Kanchan Kumar vs. State of Bihar - AIR 2022 SC
4288 and argued that while adjudicating an application under section
227 of the Cr.P.C, the trial court has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record
including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case. The
referred portion of para-13 is being reproduced as below:
13. The threshold of scrutiny required to
adjudicate an application under section 227 of the Cr.P.C
is to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
8 CRR-1483-2025
total effect of the material on record, including
examination of any infirmities appearing in the case.
13. Perused the record.
14. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is
appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under section
227 of the Cr.P.C or presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The
Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another - (2010) 2
SCC 398, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope
of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and held thus:
"10. Before considering the merits of the claim of
both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:
"227. Discharge. -- If, upon consideration of the
record of the case and the documents submitted therewith,
and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is
not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused,
he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for
so doing."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
9 CRR-1483-2025
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused
and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end
in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused"
clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to
frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has
to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial has been made
out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not
necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of
the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence
and probabilities which is really the function of the court,
after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has
merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or
not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would
take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by
the police or the documents produced before the court
which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
10 CRR-1483-2025
circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge
against him."
15. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation -
(2010) 9 SCC 368,(2010) 9 SCC 368, the Apex Court has laid down
certain guiding principles for discharge as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the
scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following
principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has been made out. The test
to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts
of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has
not been properly explained, the court will be fully
justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
11 CRR-1483-2025
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the court,
any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there
cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the
court could form an opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot be gone
into but before framing a charge the court must apply its
judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be
satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused
was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court
is required to evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
12 CRR-1483-2025
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For
this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be
expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed
to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them
gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge
the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the
trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
16. The position of law enunciated in the said decisions
reveals that while invoking the power under section 227 of the
Cr.P.C, the judge concerned has to consider only the record of the
case and the document produced along with the same. If on such
consideration, the Court formed an opinion that there is no sufficient
ground to proceed against the accused concerned, he shall be
discharged after recording the reasons therefor. It is also evident
from the precedence on the aforesaid question that while exercising
the said power, the Court could sift the materials produced along
with the final report only for the purpose of considering the question
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
13 CRR-1483-2025
whether there is ground to proceed against the accused concerned.
17. The further limitation that at the stage of framing of
charge or considering the discharge application, the impermissibility
of mini trial as laid down in State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar
Kashyap - 2021 SCC OnLine SC 314 is being referred as under:
"At the stage of framing of the charge and /or
considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not
permissible."
18. In CBI vs. Aryan Singh -2023 SCC Online SC 379 also,
the same position of law has been reiterated. The relevant
paragraph from the said judgment is extracted herein below:
"Para 10 ....As per the cardinal principle of law, at
the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini
trial.
At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a
very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
14 CRR-1483-2025
"whether any sufficient material is available to proceed
further against the accused for which the accused is
required to be tried or not."
19. Now come to the facts of this case, relevant portion of
the initial statement of Yunush/respondent No.2 recorded under
section 161 of the Cr.P.C is being reproduced as below:
''अपने खेत पर गया तो कांितलाल बंम, अ य, सतबीर िसंह, सुर ा
गाड सोनू तथा मनोज अ य 7-8 लोग के साथ बंदक
ू लेकर आये। ये ह लोग
पहले भी आये थे मुझे दे खते ह कांितलाल बंम ने कहा यह युनुस गु डु है इसे
गोली मार कर जान से ख म कर दो तभी रं कु भाई ने मुझे मेरा हाथ पकड़ कर
पीछे खींच कर बोला हट जा गोली मार दगे। म हटा तथा म व रं कु िच लाये क
बचाओ हम गोली मार रहे ह।''
20. Almost same narration is in the First Information Report
of Crime No.581/2007 lodged by respondent No.2 Yunus Patel. The
relevant portion of the further statement of Yunush/respondent No.2
recorded on 16.10.2007 under section 161 of the Cr.P.C is being
reproduced as below:
''म अपने खेत पर पहुच
ं ा तभी कांतीलाल बंम, अ य बम, सतबीर िसंह
सुर ा गाड सोनू तथा मनोज अ य 7-8 लोग के साथ बंदक
ू लेकर आये थे तथा
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
15 CRR-1483-2025
मेरे खेत पर खड़े थे मुझे दे खते ह कांतीलाल बंम ने बोला क यह युनुस पटे ल
गु डु है इसे गोली मार कर जान से ख म कर दो इस पर सतबीर िसंह ने गोली
चलाई क तभी मेरा आदमी रं कु वमा ने हाथ पकड़ कर खींच िलया जो गोली
मेरे पास से िचपक कर गयी। तथा म रं कु िच लाया क बचाओं हम गोली से
मार रहे ह।'
21. The seizure memo prepared at 4.40 p.m of 04.10.2007
discloses that a .12 bore gun with a used cartridge in the chamber of
the gun was found on the place of incident i.e. in the field of Yunus
Patel and crime details form prepared by Police Inspector Santosh
Singh Badoriya on 05.10.2007 marked the place from where it is
alleged that the gun shot fire was made through point no.-D.
22. Accordingly, the use of fire arm is not an afterthought
theory in the above mentioned details available on record.
23. For appreciating the points raised in this criminal
revision that there is no injury to the respondent No.2 Yunus Patel
,this Court is reproducing section 307 of the IPC 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
16 CRR-1483-2025
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 herein before 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.
24. The first part of Section 307 of IPC deals with a
situation, where no injury is caused and second part of Section 307
of IPC deals with a situation where hurt is caused.
25. From the plain reading of Section 307 of IPC, it is clear
that presence of injury is not sine qua non for making out an offence
under Section 307 of IPC. If any act is done with an intention or
knowledge that, if assailant by that act causes death, then the
assailant would be guilty of murder, then such act would certainly
be punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
26. Thus, the nature of injuries is not a decisive factor to
determine as to whether the act of the assailant would be an act
punishable under Section 307 of IPC or not.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
17 CRR-1483-2025
27. Thus, the following two ingredients are necessary to make
out an offence under Section 307 of 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.
28. In Dinesh Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - LAWS
(SC)-2014-7-37, the Apex Court has held that if the Judges are of the
opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence, he is competent to frame charge for such
offence even if not mentioned in the charge sheet. Accordingly, the
contention that the offence of section 307 IPC was not mentioned by
the investigation has no substance against framing of charge under
section 307 r/w section 149 of the IPC.
29. It is not a case where the application of respondent No.2
was preferred at a belated stage of trial i.e on 05.04.2024. The
record reveals that on 05.04.2024 when the application was
preferred by the respondent No.2, the case was at the stage of
framing of charges and for that delay in framing of charge, the
respondent No.2 has no role rather it was the non appearance of co-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31696
18 CRR-1483-2025
accused which caused the said delay.
30. Now this Court is considering the complete material
available with the charge sheet in the broad probabilities of the case
and the total effect of the material on record including the infirmities
pointed by the revision petitioners. The seizure of .12 bore gun with
a used cartridge in the chamber from the spot on the date of incident
and the descriptions in the crime details form and the statement of
respondent No.2 Yunus Patel and the witness Usman Patel, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the materials available with
the record satisfy the test of "grave suspicion" for framing of charge
under section 307 r/w section 149 of the IPC. Accordingly, the trial
Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charge of 5th
head in Annexure P/2 under section 307 r/w section 149 of the IPC
against the revision petitioners. Hence, this criminal revision has no
substance and is hereby dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
