SEHDEO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PANWAR, J.- This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") is directed against the order dated 7. 3. 2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 2/2002, whereby the learned Sessions Judge discharged the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 from the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "ipc") remitted the case to the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 228 of the Code, for trial of the case in accordance with law as the other offences, to which accused-respondents are charged with, are not triable by the Court of Sessions. Aggrieved by the order of discharge of the accused-respondents from the offence under Section 307, IPC, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused-respondents. Perused the impugned order as also the record of the trial court.

(3.) IN State of Maharashtra vs. Balram Boma Patil & Ors. (1), it is not essential that the bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflcited. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often given considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. "