1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1931 OF 2009

Champa Lal Dhakar .. Appellant

Versus

Naval Singh Rajput & Ors. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

dated 1.2.2008 in Criminal Revision No. 830 of 2007, by which

the High Court has partly allowed the said Revision Application

preferred by the respondents herein – original Accused and has

set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court framing the

charge under Section 307 of the IPC, the original Complainant

has preferred the present appeal.

2

2. That the Appellant herein – original Complainant lodged a

FIR against the original Accused for the offences under Sections

147, 148, 451, 325/149, 307/149, 294/149 and 506/149 of the

IPC. That the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District

Vidisha in S.T. No. 197 of 2005 framed the charge against the

original Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147,

148, 451, 325/149, 307/149, 294/149 and 506/149 of the IPC.

That feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by

the Additional Sessions Judge,  Sironj,  District Vidisha framing

the charge against the original Accused for the aforesaid offences,

the accused preferred the Revision Application before the High

Court, being  Criminal Revision Application No. 830 of 2007.

Having noticed the injuries sustained by the complainant and as

it was found that no case is made out for the offence punishable

under Section 307 of the IPC, the High Court by the impugned

judgment and order has partly allowed the said Revision

Application and has quashed and set aside the order passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to framing of

the charge under Section 307 of the IPC and has directed the

learned trial Court to reconsider its order with regard to framing

of the charge and take further steps in accordance with law.  By

3

passing the impugned order, the High Court was of the opinion

that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering

the material on record, more particularly, the injuries sustained

by the complainant, a charge under Section 325 of the IPC ought

to have been framed.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court in quashing and

setting aside  the order passed by the  learned trial  Court  with

regard to framing of the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, the

original Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Complainant  has  vehemently  submitted  that, in the facts  and

circumstances of the case, the  High Court has committed a

manifest error in quashing and setting aside the order passed by

the learned trial Court framing charge under Section 307 of the

IPC.

3.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the Appellant herein–original Complainant that, in

fact,  approximately 17 to 18 persons attacked and beaten the

complainant with an intention to commit murder and, therefore,

the learned trial  Court rightly framed the charge against the

4

accused persons for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC.  It

is submitted that, therefore, when the learned trial Court

exercised the discretion/powers judiciously, the High Court has

committed an error in quashing and setting aside the order

passed by the learned trial  Court in  exercise  of its  Revisional

Jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original Accused

has supported the order passed by the trial Court.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at

length.   We have also perused and considered the material on

record, more particularly, the injuries sustained by the original

Complainant.   Considering the material/evidence on record, we

have noticed that the complainant sustained injuries on the nose

and fracture of the nasal bone was found.  That the case may fall

within the grievous hurt, but it cannot be said that even, prima

facie, a case is made out for the offence under Section 307 of the

IPC.  Section 307 of the IPC reads as under:

“307.  Attempt to  murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of  murder, shall be punished  with imprisonment  of either  description for  a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;

5

and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”

6. Considering the material/evidence on record and the

medical certificate and the injuries sustained by the complainant,

it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was to cause

death of the complainant.   Therefore, as rightly observed by the

High Court, a charge under Section 325/149 ought to have been

framed.  Therefore, the High Court has not committed any error

in setting aside the order passed by the trial  Court  insofar as

framing  the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.  We are  in

complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

present Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and

is accordingly dismissed.

……………………………………J. (D. Y. CHANDRACHUD)

……………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

New Delhi, January 4, 2019.