S.307 IPC | Framing Charges Doesn't Require Direct Evidence Of Intention Or Knowledge; Can Be Inferred From Circumstances: Patna HC

The Patna High Court has ruled that at the stage of framing charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary to prove by direct evidence that the accused had intention or knowledge to cause death; instead, it is sufficient if the materials show either intention or knowledge, which can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, presiding over the case, observed, “Now comes the question, as to how, intention or knowledge can be proved. At the, prima facie, stage of consideration of charge and even during trial, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove intention or knowledge of the accused by way of direct evidence, because intention and knowledge comes from culpable state of mind and there cannot be a direct evidence of such culpable intention. Intention can be gathered from the surrounding circumstances, from the nature of wound received by the victim, from the manner of assault inflicted by the accused, from the nature of weapon used etc.”“Knowledge can be presumed from the act of the accused which he attempted to commit, but ultimately failed. In order to prove a charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C., it is even not necessary for the prosecution to show that the victim received any injury. If the prosecution is successful to prove that the victim committed some overtact which, if successful, would have caused murder to the victim, the accused may be held guilty for committing offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C.,” Justice Chaudhuri added.The above ruling was made in a Criminal Revision, as per the factual matrix of which on February 6, 2019, the accused persons allegedly trespassed into the house of the informant over a dispute regarding landed property, threatened the informant to withdraw a pending case against them, and assaulted some family members. It was further alleged that the respondent, Ankit Dubey, under the instruction of his father Shatrughan Dubey, opened fire, resulting in the informant receiving a gunshot injury on her left cheek, causing a fracture of the mandible.The petitioner challenged the discharge order contending that the Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, erred in concluding that there was no sufficient material to frame a charge under Section 307 IPC. The petitioner argued that the discharge report from Patna Medical College and Hospital clearly established that a gunshot wound resulted in a fracture, which the court below failed to appreciate.The High Court, in its judgement pointed out, “Surprisingly enough, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Siwan, directed the learned A.C.J.M.-X, Siwan to frame charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, which is an offence of using firearm. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge came to a finding that a firearm was used or a firing was made by a firearm, in course of the alleged incident. However, he did not consider the discharge certificate obtained by the Investigating Officer from Patna Medical College and Hospital.”The High Court further noted that even apart from Section 307 IPC, the Sessions Judge even failed to consider, on the basis of case diary, that when the informant received gun shot injury, causing fracture of mandible, a charge under Section 326 of the I.P.C. ought to be filed. On the contrary, the court said that the Additional Sessions Judge directed the A.C.J.M., to frame charge under Section 323 of the I.P.C. “The impugned order is not only illegal but also perverse,” the Court remarked.Thus, the High Court allowed the revision application, and set aside the discharge order while directing the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan “to transmit the record to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Siwan to frame charge against the accused persons under Section 307 of the I.P.C.”Accordingly, the criminal revision was disposed of.Case Title: Pushpa Devi vs The State of Bihar Patna and orsLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 40Click Here To Read Judgement

S.307 IPC | Framing Charges Doesn't Require Direct Evidence Of Intention Or Knowledge; Can Be Inferred From Circumstances: Patna HC

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

S.307 IPC | Framing Charges Doesn't Require Direct Evidence Of Intention Or Knowledge; Can Be Inferred From Circumstances: Patna HC

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers