PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer dated 12.5.2003 discharging the accused-respondents of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The learned Judge formed the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused-respondents committed an offence not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. He framed the charge against the accused-respondent for offence under sections 323, 324 & 347 IPC and transferred the case for trial to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 16.8.2001 one Labh Singh submitted a written report at Police Station, Mohangarh stating that Prem Singh had taken the Bus bearing No. RJ 07/P-977 for cleaning at Hamirwada. While he was cleaning the vehicle about 15-20 accused persons armed with Lathis, Dharias and gun attacked on Prem Singh. His cries attracted Durg Singh, Narain Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Hajari Singh etc. On this information police registered a case for offence under Sections 143, 323, 307 I.P.C. After usual investigation police laid charge-sheet against accused-Sherdin, Haji Khan, Taju Khan and Hanif Khan. The learned Magistrate committed the accused to the Court of Sessions. The learned Judge found that six injuries on the person of injured Prem Singh were simple in nature caused by blunt object. The rest of the three injuries were simple in nature caused by sharp-edged weapon. However, all the three injuries were on head. The doctor opined that the injuries were not dangerous to life. In view of this, the learned Judge arrived at the conclusion that no charge could be framed against them for offence under Section 307 I.P.C.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In my view the essential ingredients for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is the intention of the accused in causing injuries. The intention or the knowledge can be gathered from the circumstances and not merely from the consequences which ensued. The nature of weapon used, the manner in which it is used, the motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that they may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. It appears that the learned Judge has taken into consideration the only nature of the injury while determining the intention for framing charge under Section 307 I.P.C. The learned Judge has completely ignored the fact that three injuries alleged to have been caused by sharp-edged weapon on the vital part of the body i.e. head. The fact that the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon, on the vital part like head leads to a prima facie conclusion that the accused persons intended to commit murder of the injured. Thus, the learned Judge has committed error in discharging the accused-respondents of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The said offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.