Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by the original first informant (Pandharinath Tukaram Raut) and another applicant against the order of the Sessions Court discharging the accused (respondents 1 to 9) for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The first informant had lodged an FIR on 1st April 2009 alleging offences under Sections 307, 325, 323, 147, 148, 341 read with Section 149 IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court as it included the offence under Section 307 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. During the pendency of the trial, the accused filed an application contending that no case under Section 307 IPC was made out. The Sessions Court allowed the application and discharged the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC, while framing charges for other offences. Aggrieved, the first informant and another applicant filed the present revision application before the High Court. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the principles for framing charges under Section 307 IPC. It held that the Sessions Court had erred in appreciating the evidence at the charge stage by concluding that the injuries were not dangerous to life, without considering the intention or knowledge of the accused. The High Court noted that the medical evidence showed injuries caused by a sharp weapon, and the nature of the weapon and the manner of attack indicated an intention to cause death. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, only a prima facie case is required, and the Sessions Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of discharge under Section 307 IPC, and directed the Sessions Court to frame charges under Section 307 IPC against the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Interference with Discharge Order - The High Court in revisional jurisdiction can interfere if the lower court's order is perverse or based on misappreciation of evidence - The test is whether a prima facie case exists, not whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction (Paras 5-6). B) Indian Penal Code - Section 307 - Attempt to Murder - Prima Facie Case - For framing charge under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the injuries are dangerous to life; what is relevant is the intention or knowledge of the accused - The nature of injuries and medical evidence are relevant but not conclusive at the charge stage (Paras 7-10). C) Indian Penal Code - Section 307 - Discharge - Improper Appreciation - The Sessions Court erred in discharging the accused for Section 307 IPC by holding that the injuries were simple and not dangerous to life, without considering the intention and the weapon used - The order was set aside and the charge under Section 307 IPC was restored (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court was justified in discharging the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC on the ground that the injuries were not dangerous to life, and whether the revisional court can interfere with such an order.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Sessions Court discharging the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC, and directed the Sessions Court to frame charges under Section 307 IPC against the accused.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC
- prima facie case
- discharge
- revisional jurisdiction
- appreciation of evidence at charge stage
