ORDER
R.S. Chauhan, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30-9-2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar whereby he has framed charges for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 365, 342, 307 and 325/149, IPC.
2. Shri Badhwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that all the injuries on Prashant Yadav, the injured, are on non-vital parts and out of five injuries, two are lacerated wounds. Both the lacerted wounds are on the left leg and there are three abrassions on the left leg. According to the x-ray report of Prashant Yadav there is fracture of a finger and the fractures on left forearm and fracture on the left leg and right leg. Thus, according to him, these injuries are not “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the person.” Hence, offence under Section 307, IPC is not made out against the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, the learned P.P. has relied on the case of Khajan Singh v. State of M.P. 1996 Cri LJ 3774 (MP) where M.P. High Court has held that within the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot decide whether a charge under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out or not. He has further submitted that over all circumstances of the case do indicate that the petitioner along with other co-accused intended to cause death of the injured Prashant Yadav.
4. We have heard both the counsels for the parties.
5. In a catena of cases, this Court has held that the charge order can only be challenged through a revision-petition. For, a charge order is a final order, therefore a revision-petition against a charge order is certainly maintainable. Once it is admitted that the petition is maintainable, naturally the High Court does have the power to consider whether charges have been framed validly or invalidly. In case the ingredients of an offence are not made out, then the High Court would be justified in quashing the charges framed for the particular offence. Therefore, while considering the charge under Section 307, I.P.C., the High Court would be justified in examining whether the ingredients of Section 307, I.P.C. are made out or not. In case they are not, the High Court would be justified in quashing the said charge.
6. 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 to (imprisonment for life), or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
7. Thus the Court has to consider whether there is sufficient intention or knowledge which can be attributed to the petitioner. Secondly such intention or knowledge can be gathered only from over all circumstances of the case, from the nature of injury, from the weapon used by the assailants, and all the consequences of the injuries. Only in case where the circumstances make out the necessary ingredients of Section 307, I.P.C., would the Court be justified in framing the charges.
8. According to the complainant, father of the injured Prashant Yadav, while Prashant was standing outside his house, the present petitioner, along with others, came to his house and abducted Prashant at a gun point. Subsequently, they took him to a house where they assaulted him with hockey and “sariya.” It is pertinent to note, that the alleged offenders are said to be armed with a fire-arm and with sariya. Yet, there is no fire-arm injury caused to the injured. Moreover, there are only grievous injuries on non-vital part of the body caused by blunt weapons. In case the assailants intended to cause death of the injured, there was no reason for them not to use fire-arm or to cause injury on the vital parts of his body. The fact that no fire-arm has been used by the assailant, the fact that all the injuries are on non-vital parts of the body clearly reveal that their intention was not to cause Prashant’s death, but merely to cause grievous injury so as to teach him a lesson. Thus, the ingredients of Section 307, IPC are conspicuously missing in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. In our opinion since the ingredients of Section 307, IPC do not exit, therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has wrongly framed the charge for the offence under Section 307, IPC.
10. Therefore, while allowing this petition, we quash and set aside the charge under Section 307, IPC. To this limited extent, the order dated 30-9-2005 is modified. However, it is made clear that the charges for the other offences are sustained. It is also clarified that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge may frame any other charges on the basis of evidence available on record in accordance with law.
With these observations, this revision-petition is partly allowed.