Case Note & Summary
The complainant-appellant, Chairman of the District Waqf Board, Seoni, alleged that while settling a dispute at a mosque, he was abused and beaten by eight accused-respondents, who pressed his mouth, nose and throat, causing him to lose consciousness. An FIR was lodged under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC. The trial court initially framed charges including Section 307 IPC, but on revision, the High Court set aside that order and remanded for fresh consideration. The trial court then refused to frame charge under Section 307 IPC, holding that the medical report did not indicate that the injuries were likely to cause death; it only mentioned a possibility of respiratory arrest if further pressure was applied. The High Court confirmed this order in criminal revision. The Supreme Court considered the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC, which require an act done with intention or knowledge that if it caused death, the accused would be guilty of murder. Relying on precedents, the Court noted that the nature of injury is not determinative; what matters is the intention or knowledge. However, in this case, the medical evidence did not show that the act was likely to cause death; the possibility of respiratory arrest was contingent on further acts not committed. The Court also noted that the statements under Section 161 CrPC did not clearly indicate an intention to kill. The Court held that the courts below correctly refused to frame charge under Section 307 IPC as there was no prima facie case. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Framing of Charge - The complainant alleged that accused pressed his mouth, nose and throat causing throttling; medical report stated possibility of respiratory arrest only if further pressure applied; held that prima facie no case under Section 307 IPC as act was not likely to cause death in ordinary course; mere possibility insufficient for framing charge (Paras 6-8, 11.1-11.3).
B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Applicability - For liability under Section 34, there must be simultaneous consensus of minds of participants to bring about a particular result; common intention can develop at spot; all accused liable for criminal act done in furtherance of common intention (Para 11.4).
C) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charge - Standard of Proof - At the stage of framing charge, court is not to undertake detailed assessment of material; only prima facie case is required; however, if material does not disclose ingredients of offence, charge cannot be framed (Para 9(d), 11.1-11.3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the trial court's refusal to frame charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused-respondents.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the courts below correctly refused to frame charge under Section 307 IPC as the medical evidence did not prima facie show that the act was done with intention or knowledge that it was likely to cause death. The order of the High Court was affirmed.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC requires intention to cause death or knowledge that act is likely to cause death
- nature of injury not determinative
- at framing stage court must consider prima facie case
- common intention under Section 34 IPC requires simultaneous consensus.
Case Details
2024 LawText (SC) (09) 326
Criminal Appeal No. 3327 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 16333 of 2023)
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against order of High Court confirming refusal to frame charge under Section 307 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought framing of charge under Section 307 IPC against accused-respondents.
Filing Reason
Appellant aggrieved by High Court order dismissing his criminal revision against trial court's refusal to frame charge under Section 307 IPC.
Previous Decisions
Trial court initially framed charge under Section 307 IPC, but High Court set it aside and remanded; on remand, trial court refused to frame charge under Section 307 IPC; High Court confirmed that order.
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in confirming the trial court's refusal to frame charge under Section 307 IPC.
Whether the medical evidence and witness statements prima facie disclose an attempt to murder.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that nature of injury does not rule out Section 307 IPC at framing stage; throttling suspected; medical author not examined; witnesses disclosed pressing of mouth, nose and throat with intention to kill; reliance on State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi that detailed assessment not required at framing stage; predecessor judge had framed charge under Section 307 IPC.
Respondents (State) supported the concurrent findings that medical report did not indicate injuries likely to cause death; only possibility of respiratory arrest if further acts committed.
Ratio Decidendi
For framing charge under Section 307 IPC, there must be prima facie material showing that the accused did an act with intention or knowledge that if it caused death, they would be guilty of murder. Medical evidence indicating only a possibility of death from further acts, not that the actual injuries were likely to cause death, is insufficient to frame charge under Section 307 IPC.
Judgment Excerpts
In this way in the said medical report, based on the circumstances arising as a result of future aspects, keeping in view, the possibilities, it has been mentioned that if pressure was applied on the scratch marks present in the mouth, nose and throat it could have caused obstruction of the respiratory tract. The said possibility is dependent on that if the accused had committed further acts of the above type, there was a possibility that the windpipe could have been blocked. It has not been said in the report that the injury caused by the accused or the act done by them was likely to result in the death of the complainant.
To justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. ... What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.
Procedural History
FIR No.133/2018 lodged on 09.03.2018 under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC. Case committed to Sessions Court on 18.03.2019. Additional Sessions Judge framed charges including Section 307 IPC on 17.09.2019. High Court in Criminal Revision No.4805/2019 set aside framing of charge on 21.01.2020 and remanded. On remand, trial court refused to frame charge under Section 307 IPC on 11.11.2021. Complainant filed Criminal Revision No.3125/2021 before High Court, which was dismissed on 23.11.2023. Complainant then filed SLP before Supreme Court, which was converted into Criminal Appeal No.3327/2024 and dismissed on 20.09.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 294, 323, 506, 353, 352, 34, 307, 332, 300, 511
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 161
