PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS is a revision petition under Sec. 397/401 Cr. P. C. against the order dated 4. 6. 1986, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, in criminal case No. 15/86 whereby he ordered to frame the charge against the accused petitioner under sec. 307 IPC.

(3.) MY attention has been drawn to the case of this court. Kajod vs. Rama (1) In this case, the learned Sessions Judge, discharged the accused person for the offence under s. 307 IPC and sent the case of trial to the learned Magistrate for other offences which are triable by the learned Magistrate, it was contended in this case that the accused person inflicted serious and grave injury on 4 persons and looking to the nature of injuries a case was clearly made out u/s 307 I. P. C. It was further submitted that one of the injuries found on Bhagwan Singh was fracture of the skull bones and this grievous injury clearly showed that the offence was of s. 307 IPC. It was also held by this court that the intention of the accused person was not to kill any person but was to take forcible possession of the house occupied by Kajod and for that purpose to inflict injury on the persons who might come in their way to fulfil this object. It was also clear from the prosecution case that the accused persons were armed with sharp edged wea-pons but no injury dangerous to life is alleged to have been inflicted on any one of the injured person by sharp edged weapons. Only one injury on Bhagwan Singh has been shown to be grievous and the same was also inflicted by blunt weapon On this account, it cannot be said that accused had intention to cause death Keeping in view the other facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that case was made out under S. 307 I. P. C. It was, therefore, held that prima-facie no charge is made out under S. 307 IPC MY attention has also been drawn to the case of Munshi Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan (2 ). In this case the injury was caused on the head by the axe depth of which was 1/4". It was held that it shows that enough force was not used by the assailant while inflicting the said injury to the injured. This circumstance leads the court to infer that the assailant never intended to cause death to the injured. It was also to be noted that only one injury was inflicted by the appellant. In this circumstance the conviction under S. 307 IPC cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appellant was acquitted for the charge under S. 307 IPC and was convicted for the offence under S. 324 IPC and was sentenced to one year R. I.