RAM GOPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. K. Mathur, J. This revision has been directed against the order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri on 6-9-1993 framing the charge against the accused in Sessions trial No. 227 of 1991. The main contention raised on behalf of the revisionists is that there is no material for framing the charge under Section 307 I. P. C. A charge under Section 307 I. P. C. could have been framed if there was some material which disclosed an act having been done with such intention and under such circumstances which would have rendered the accused liable for murder if death of anyone had been caused.

(2.) IN this case, the first charge clearly indicates that the intention of the accused was to cause injuries. There being no intention to cause death, the Act of the petitioner could have constituted an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. if the Act was done with intention to cause such bodily injuries which the accused knew to be likely to cause death or he caused with bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or the Act was so imminently dangerous which in all probabilities was sufficient to cause death. IN this case, the perusal of the injuries does not disclose any such circumstances.