SHYAMAL MURASINGH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 27 -03 -2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in case No. S.T. 2(ST/B) of 2006 framing charge against the present petitioners for having committed an offence punishable under sections 323 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC).

(2.) THE main contention of Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the basic ingredients of section 307 are not made out and so no charge under section 307 of the IPC.

(3.) I have gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and almost all the witnesses have stated that the petitioners hit the injured with the helmet with the intention of killing/murdering him. It has been urged by Sri Sarkar relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh and others, [ : 1989 CRI. L.J. 116], especially the observations made in para -7 thereof that even if this evidence is accepted to be true, no intention to murder can be deduced. In this behalf, he has submitted that, (i) the occurrence took place at the heat of the moment, (ii) that the weapon of offence is not a dangerous weapon but a helmet which the petitioners would have been carrying since he was on a motorcycle, (iii) that the nature of injury received was simple, and (iv) that, there is only one single injury.