Uttarakhand High Court

Kurban vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 1 May, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              Criminal Revision No.387 of 2023

Kurban                                         ...........Revisionist

                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another               ......... Respondents

Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1.
Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2.


                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

order dated 02.06.2023, passed in Sessions Trial No. 30 of

2023, State of Uttarakhand vs. Kurban, by the court of

District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar ("the case").

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The case is based on an FIR, lodged by

injured Kamil, under Section 452, 324, 504, 506 IPC,

Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar. According to it, on

19.10.2021 at 06:30 in the evening, the applicant along

with the co-accused entered into the house of the

informant and abused him and started maarpeet. They

attacked the informant, Akram, Shakib and others, due to

which, they sustained injuries. It is this FIR, in which,

after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted

against the revisionist for the offences punishable under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506, 34

IPC.

4. It is argued on behalf of the revisionist that

offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Hence, he

be discharged from that offence. By the impugned order,

the Court held that there are grounds to frame charge

under Section 307 IPC also.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that it is a case of cross FIR. In the FIR lodged on

behalf of the revisionist, a compromise has been entered

between the parties. But, in the instant case, charge-sheet

has been submitted. He would submit that the injuries on

Shakib and Kamil were not dangerous to life. It would have

been hardly a case under Section 304 IPC.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel

would submit that injuries are on the head of both the

injured, Shakib and Kamil. There is no illegality in the

order.

7. Section 307 IPC provides for punishment for

attempt to murder. It reads as follows:-

"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."

8. What is important in the provisions of Section

307 IPC is the intention and knowledge of the accused.

Intention is a stage of mind, which can only be inferred by

the act committed. In the impugned order, the court below

has recorded the injuries on the injured Shakib and Kamil.

They are as follows:-