Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2670 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ratan Lal & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- I.K. Chaturvedi Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 8.7.2010 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. No. 3, Meerut, in S. T. No. 561 of
2010, State Vs. Ratan Lal and others, whereby by an application moved by
the accused- revisionists u/s 228 Cr.P.C. was rejected and the court proceeded
to frame charge u/s 307 I.P.C.
It appears from the record that a non-cognizable case was registered against
the revisionists at the behest of O.P. No. 2 on 30.5.2009. After investigation
charge sheet was submitted u/s 307 I.P.C. At the stage of charge an
application was moved u/s 228 Cr.P.C. by the revisionists praying thereby
that no offence u/s 307 I.P.C. is made out, hence the charge u/s 307 I.P.C.
should not be framed. On the application both the parties were heard and after
hearing the parties the application was rejected.
I have heard Mr. I. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.
Mr. Chaturvedi argued that from the evidence on the record it is apparent that
the injuries sustained by Saudan Singh were simple in nature, therefore, a
charge u/s 307 was not warranted.
To appreciate the argument of Mr. Chaturvedi it would be expedient to refer
the definition of attempt to murder embodied u/s 307 I.P.C. It speaks as
under:
“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.”
From the above definition it is amply clear that intention is the main
consideration for the offence punishable u/s 307 I.P.C. For inferring the
intention of the accused, injuries may afford a valuable clue but for framing
the charge the sole criteria is not the nature of the injury. In view of this legal
position, I am of the view that if the trial court proceeded to frame a charge
u/s 307 I.P.C. on the basis of the statements of the witnesses in which they
stated that it was a murderous attempt, the trial court cannot be found at fault
in framing the charge u/s 307 I.P.C. because in the light of the statements of
the witnesses it becomes a matter of evidence as to whether there was an
intention to commit murder or not.
In view of the above, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order
impugned in this revision.
The revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.7.2010
Pcl