Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. .....track) no.1, beawar, district ajmer, whereby the learned judge has framed the charges for offences under sections 148, 323, 325, 326, 307 read with section 149 ipc and 4/25 arms act, the petitioner has approached this court. the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the prosecution the injured, bhikam chand, had received merely six injuries out of which only two injuries, namely injuries nos. 1 & 2 are said to be grievous in nature. both the injuries, caused by the sharp-edged weapon, are on the non-vital part of the body. however, as they are not on the vital parts of the body, there is no possibility of death being caused in the ordinary nature of course. thus, the charge for offence under section 307 ipc is unsustainable. in order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of man mohan & ors. v/s. state of rajasthan [2006 (2) cr.l.r. (raj.) 1408] rajkumar bohra & anr. v/s. state of rajasthan [2011 (1) cr.l.r. (raj.) 132]. the learned public prosecutor has contended that according to bhikam chand and his guard, the petitioner and other co-accused persons attacked with lethal weapons like sword and lathis at the dead.....

Judgment:

1.Aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325, 326, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the prosecution the injured, Bhikam Chand, had received merely six injuries out of which only two injuries, namely injuries Nos. 1 & 2 are said to be grievous in nature. Both the injuries, caused by the sharp-edged weapon, are on the non-vital part of the body. However, as they are not on the vital parts of the body, there is no possibility of death being caused in the ordinary nature of course. Thus, the charge for offence under Section 307 IPC is unsustainable. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Man Mohan & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan [2006 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1408] Rajkumar Bohra & Anr. V/s. State of Rajasthan [2011 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 132]. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that according to Bhikam Chand and his guard, the petitioner and other co-accused persons attacked with lethal weapons like sword and lathis at the dead of the night. According to him, Rajendra had struck him on his left and right leg with a sharp edged weapon, like a sword. Moreover, according to him, Mahendra had struck him on his head with lathi. The testimony of Bhikam Chand is further corroborated by the injury report. According to the injury report, Bhikam Chand had suffered two chopped and incised wounds on the left and right leg. According to the opinion expressed by the doctors, both the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, had he not received medical attention. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence for framing the charge for offence under Section 307 IPC. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as examined the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner.

Section 307 IPC reads 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 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 [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.]

Illustrations

(a) ......

(b) ......

(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of [the first paragraph] of this section.

(d) .....

According to the latter part of Section 307 IPC read with Illustration c, the nature of the injury is immaterial. What is essential is that in case hurt has been caused to a person under such circumstances where the intention appears to be to cause the death of a person then the case would fall within the latter part of Section 307 IPC. In the present case, according to Bhikam Chand, the petitioner and other co-accused persons had attacked him with lethal weapons like sword at the dead of the night. Moreover, the petitioner had struck Bhikam Chand on both his legs causing incised wounds. According to the opinion of the doctor, had he not received medical attention, then it would have caused his death in the ordinary course of nature. In criminal law, it is no defence that the person has been saved after receiving the medical attention. Thus, prima faice there seems to be ample evidence for framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. By way of abandoned caution, it is stated that any observation made by this Court should not adversely affect the decision of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is duty bound to consider the evidence objectively and strictly in accordance with law. For the reasons stated above, this petition is devoid of any merit; the revision petition is, hereby, dismissed.