27 Jan 2023 1:42 PM GMT
The Allahabad High Court has observed that for the purposes of constituting an offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, what is the material is intention or knowledge and the circumstances in which the act has been done, and not the injuries.The bench of Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed thus while upholding an order of the Sessions Judge, Varanasi rejecting the plea...
The Allahabad High Court has observed that for the purposes of constituting an offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, what is the material is intention or knowledge and the circumstances in which the act has been done, and not the injuries.
The bench of Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed thus while upholding an order of the Sessions Judge, Varanasi rejecting the plea of discharge filed by a man accused of committing offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
"Section 308 IPC consists of two parts. The first is related to no-injury cases while the second part deals with where the hurt is caused. So what is the material is intention or knowledge and the circumstances in which the act has been done and not the injuries," the Court observed.
The Court also observed that at the stage of framing charge the test of the prima-facie case has to be applied and if there is a ground for presuming that the accused committed the offence, a court can justifiably say that a prima-facie case against him exists and framing of charge is justified.
Hence, noting that there are allegations in the FIR that accused persons were armed with an iron rod, danda and country-made pistol and they assaulted the injured with a lathi, danda and the butt of the country-made pistol causing a head injury, the Court found justification in the order of the Sessions Judge, Varanasi in rejecting the discharge plea of the accused.
Essentially, as per the FIR in the instant case, the accused persons assaulted the complainant and his brother with an iron rod, bricks danda and the butt of a country-made pistol causing serious head injury to the complainant's brother and thereafter, they ran away presuming that the complainant and his brother are dead.
The injured were medically examined and after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against all the named accused persons. The accused-revisionists moved an application for discharge under 227 Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the injured have not suffered any grievous injury.
It was their plea that the doctor who had conducted the medical examination had opined that the injuries are simple in nature. It was their further plea that no supplementary report had been prepared on the basis of the X-Ray report and C.T. Scan and hence no offence U/s 308 is made out.
However, the trial court by the impugned order, after hearing both parties, rejected the aforesaid application. Aggrieved with it, the instant revision plea was filed whereby similar arguments were put forth by the counsel for the revisionists.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the state argued that the assault had been made with the intention of causing death in which two persons received injuries and hence, the order of the trial court rejecting the discharge plea of accused was proper.
Having heard both parties, the Court, observed that the subordinate court had considered the entire facts, evidence and other material available on record and after analyzing the same, it had come to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to frame the charge.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision plea.
Also read: Allahabad HC Explains Ingredients To Constitute Offence U/S 308 IPC [Attempt To Commit Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder]
Counsel for Revisionist: Manoj Kumar Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A.
Case title - Ramji Prasad And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 137 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Click Here To Read/Download Order