ANJANI KUMAR CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 23-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 562 
ANJANI KUMAR CHAUDHARY 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 926 of 2014) 
APRIL 23, 2014 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
ss.2271228- Discharge/framing of charges - FIR lodged 
for offences punishable u/ss 307, 386 /PC and other offences 
- Application ulss 2271228 CrPC - Addi. Sessions Judge 
holding that no charge could be framed ulss 307 and 386 /PC 
and transferred the case to Chief Judicial Magistrate .J Order 
0 affirmed by High Court - Held: FIR and statements of 
witnesses prima facie indicate that ingredients of s.307 /PC 
are made out - Order of Court of Session as affirmed by High 
Court, set aside - Penal Code, 1860, ss.307, 386, 147, 148, 
504, 3"84, 324 and 341. 
· 
E 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.307 - Ingredients - FIR - ApplicationJor discharge u/ 
s 307 /PC - Held: If anybody does any act with intention or 
knowledge that by his act he might cause death, and hurl is 
F caused, that is sufficient to attract s. 307 -
Further, in order 
to attract s. 307, the injury need not be on vital part of the body 
- In the instant case, statements, weapons' used and taking 
into account the nature of injuries and the open declaration 
by accused that the appellant would be killed, would indicate 
G that, prima facie, ingredients of s. 307 /PC are made out -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.2271228. 
An FIR was registered for offences punishable ulss 
147, 148, 504, 323, 384, 324, 307 and 341 IPC against 7 
H 
562 
ANJANI KUMAR CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR 563 
named persons, i.e. respondents nos. 2 and 10 to 15 and 
A 
other unknown _persons on the allegations that while the 
appellant, a. practicing advocate, was sitting in the house 
of one of his acquaintance, the accused came there and 
demanded Rs. 1000 fr.om him as Rangdari for Holi. The 
' 
appellant gave Rs. 200 (lnd protested the way the money 
B 
was demanded. A~ersome time respondent no. 2 along 
with about 12 other persons reached there with lathi, iron 
rod, fursha, talwar etc. and abused the appellant, dragged 
him out of the house and brutally assaulted him with the 
weapons and left the place. The appellant was admitted c 
to the hospital and his statement was recorded. 
Respondent no. 2 filed an application u/ss 227/228 CrPC 
before the Additional Session Judge stating that no 
offence u/ss 307 or 386 IPC was made out and prayed for 
the discharge and that the case be returned to the Chief D 
Judicial Magistrate. The Court of Session held that no 
charge could be framed for offences punishable u/ss 307 
and 386 IPC and transferred the case to the Chief Judicial 
Magistrate for trial. The revision petitio.n filed by the 
appellant was dismissed by the High Court. 
E 
I 
Allowing the aP,peal the Court 
HELD:1.1. In Mohan's case*, this Court has taken the 
view that if anybody does any act with intention or 
knowledge that by his act he might cause death, and hurt 
F 
is caused, that is sufficient to attract s. 307 IPC. Further, 
this Court has also taken the view that, in order to attract 
s. 307 IPC, the injury need not be on the vital part of the 
body. [para 10) [567-H; 568-A) 
*State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan and Others 2013 (7) 
G 
SCR 802 .= (2013) 14 sec 116 - relied on 
1.2. In the instant case, the statements given by 
various witnesses support the case in the FIR. 
Statements of the witnesses are also on the same lines. 
H 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 
A What is discernible from the statements is that 1st 
accused and others, while committing the alleged 
offence, had exhorted that they would kill the appellant 
if the money was not paid. Open announcement by the 
accused and others that the appellant would not be alive 
B to practice in the High Court, would prima facie indicate 
that the intention of the accused was, what he had 
spoken, followed by the infliction of injuries. Further,· 
when several persons attack an unarmed person with 
deadly weapons, it is reasonable to presume that they 
c had knowledge or intenlion that such an attack would 
result in cWath. In the instant case, the statements, the 
weapons used, i.e. Lathi, rod, Farsa, Talwar etc. and 
taking into account the nature of injuries and the open 
declaration by the accused that the appellant would be 
D killed, would indicate that prima facie the ingredients of 
s. 307 IPC are made out. In the circumstances, the 
judgment of the Court of Session as affirmed by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.