Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Sharma, J.

1. This revision filed by the complainant Shahid Khan is directed against the order dated 10.10.2000, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity in Sessions Case No. 10/99, whereby learned Judge has discharged the accused persons from the offence under Section 307 IPC and sent the case back to the A.C.J.M. No. 2 for trial for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324/34 IPC,

2. In this matter, notices were issued to Non-Petitioners. Mr. S.C. Gupta appeared on behalf of Non-Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of State. Record of the lower court was called for. Arguments were heard.

3. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that the trial court has wrongly discharged the N.P. Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is urged that Sessions Court could discharge any offender from any offence under Section 227 Cr.P.C. only if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and that court shall also record reasons for doing so. It was the charge stage and for framing the charge Section 228 of Cr.P.C. is relevant. In this matter accused persons have inflicted as many as 16 injuries, many of them were incised wounds, caused by sharp edged weapon on different parts of body. Some of them were on vital part. It is urged that there is enmity between injured and accused persons. These persons intentionally caused these injuries on the body of the injured to commit murder. Because so many persons intervened, therefore, they could not commit his murder. For the offence under Section 307 IPC, the main point for consideration is the intention of the accused persons. If the accused persons cause injuries with the intention to commil murder, then it would amount offence under Section 307 IPC and it would be immaterial whether injury caused on the body of the injured is simple or grievous. For the offence under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that doctor should give opinion that injuries caused to the injured were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Trial Court has discharged these non-petitioners from the offence of Section 307 IPC on the premise that the injuries caused on body of injured were simple and were not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was the duty of the trial court to see all the facts and circumstances of the case including the number of injuries, the weapon used, relationship between the parties and the circumstances under which offence was committed. It is urged that looking to the number of injuries, nature of the weapon used, part of the body chosen by the accused persons and all the facts and circumstances of the case, it was clear that accused persons had caused injuries with intention to commit murder of Shahid. Trial Court has wrongly discharged these accused persons from the offence under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, the order should be set-aside and lower court should be directed to frame the charge under Section 307 IPC against the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5.

4. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the non-petitioners Mr. S.C. Gupta that the impugned order is perfectly legal. In the present matter, all the injuries alleged to have been caused are simple. There is no grievous hurl on vital part of the injured and doclor has not opined that the injuries caused to the injured were sufficienl in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is also contended that the trial court has considered all the evidence on record and has also held in the order that by the Statement recorded under Seclion 161 Cr.P.C. it is clear that accused persons had no intention to commit the murder. It is urged that under these circumstances, revision should be dismissed.

5. P.P. is also heard.

6. After considering arguments of both the parties, I am of the view that in the present matter, Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is relevant which reads as under:-

'227. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submilted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.'

7. From the above Section two things are clear. First things is that the Sessions Court can discharge an accused from the offence only if it finds that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It means that if there is a prima facie case, then the Court should frame the Charge. Court should discharge only when there is no prima facie evidence against the accused persons for that offence. Second thing, which is clear from this Section is that if the accused is discharged, then the Court should record its reasons for doing so i.e. it should give reasons as to why it has come to the conclusion that such offence is not made out.

(8). So far as Section 307 IPC is concerned, it is settled law that for this offence, it is not necessary that injured person has received grievous hurt on the vital part and it is also not necessary that doctor has opined that injured person has received such injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary course of nalure to cause death. The main thing for Section 307 IPC is whether accused persons had intention to cause death of the injured. So far as the intention of accused person is concerned, it can be gathered from the number of injuries, from the nature of the weapon used, from the part of the body chosen by the accused persons for causing injuries, by the other circumstances under which the offence was committed, and what are the relations between the accused and injured etc.

9. In my view, the lower court has given mainly two reasons for discharging the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 IPC. (1) Injured has not received any grievous hurt on vital part and (2) injured has not received such injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

10. In my considered opinion, these reasons were not sufficient for discharging the accused persons from the offence under Section 307 IPC. Though trial court has held that from the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is not clear that accused persons had intention to cause death but it has not given detailed reasons by what statement he had come to this conclusion. In my view, when a Sessions Court was discharging the accused persons from the offence under Section 307 IPC, it should have discussed the statements of the witnesses and then should have come to the conclusion how does it say that accused persons had no intention to cause the death. It should have discharged all the circumstances of the case, including number of the injuries and the weapon used etc.

11. In my view the impugned order dated 10th of October 2000, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity, discharging the accused persons Saiim, Akram, Akhtar and Shahbuddin alias Idya from the offence under Section 307 IPC is illegal and deserves to be set-aside.

12. Resullantly, I allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 10.10.2000 and remand the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity, with a direction to hear both the parties again on the point of charge and decide the matter afresh.

13. Record of the lower court alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately.