Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Champa Lal Dhakar, the original complainant, lodged an FIR against the respondents (original accused) for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 307 (attempt to murder). The Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 451, 325/149, 307/149, 294/149, and 506/149 IPC. The accused filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which partly allowed the revision and quashed the charge under Section 307 IPC, holding that the injuries sustained (fracture of nasal bone) did not indicate an intention to cause death and that a charge under Section 325 IPC (grievous hurt) was more appropriate. The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence and the injuries, noting that the complainant suffered a fracture of the nasal bone, which constitutes grievous hurt but does not prima facie establish an attempt to murder. The Court held that Section 307 IPC requires an intention or knowledge to cause death under circumstances that would amount to murder if death occurred. Since the injuries did not suggest such intention, the High Court's order was correct. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to set aside the charge under Section 307 IPC and directing the trial court to reconsider the charge under Section 325 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Ingredients - For an offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must establish an intention or knowledge to cause death under circumstances that, if death had occurred, would amount to murder - Mere grievous hurt, such as fracture of nasal bone, does not prima facie indicate such intention - Held that the High Court rightly set aside the charge under Section 307 IPC (Paras 5-6). B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Interference with Charge - Section 397 CrPC - The revisional court can interfere if the trial court's order framing charge is not supported by prima facie evidence - In the present case, the High Court correctly found that the injuries did not justify a charge under Section 307 IPC and directed reconsideration for charge under Section 325 IPC (Paras 2, 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the charge under Section 307 IPC framed by the trial court, given the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order quashing the charge under Section 307 IPC and directing the trial court to reconsider the charge under Section 325 IPC.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC requires intention or knowledge to cause death
- mere grievous hurt does not constitute attempt to murder
- revisional court can interfere if trial court's charge is not supported by prima facie evidence
