LexRATAN SINGH versus STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 6 S.C.R. 976 A RATAN SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2009) B APRIL 24, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- s. 482 -- Petition c questioning framing of charges u/ss. 3231149, 3071149, 341 and 294 /PC -- Proceedings quashed on the ground that since the injuries on the victims were simple in nature, framing of charges u/s. 3071149 was abuse of process of court -- On appeal, held : Nature of injuries by itself will not rule out D applicability of s. 307 - Applicability to be detem1ined in view ~ - of intention or knowledge -- Determination thereof is question of fact -- Interference uls. 482 not called for -- Penal Code, 1860 -- ss. 3071149, 3231149, 341 and 294. E Penal Code, 1860 - s. 307 - Applicability -- Scope and ambit of -- Discussed. Charges were framed against respondent No. 2 u/ss. + 307/149, 323/149, 341 and 294 IPC. His petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the same, was allowed by F High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The scope of interference u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. at the present juncture, as was done by the High Court ~ G "1-. is clearly unsustainable. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused H 976 RATAN SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR. 977 was simple or minor, will not by itself rule out application A of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury. [Paras 9 and 11] [981-A-B-F] 2. To justify a conviction u/s. 307 IPC, it is not 8 essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coining to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deducted from other C circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accuseci and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is - i. concerned, but still there may be cases in which the D culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, E irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal, need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution F thereof. The Court has to see whether the ~ct, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an accused charged u/s. 307 IPC cannot be _:.- acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the G victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. [Paras 5 and 6] [979-F-H; 980-A-C] Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843, relied on 978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A State of Maharashtra v. Bairam Barna Patil and Ors. 1983 (2) SCC 28; Girija Shanker v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2004 (3) SCC 793: R. Prakash v. State of Kamataka, JT 2004 (2) SC 348; State of M.P. v. Saleem @ Chamaru and Anr. 2005 (5) SCC 554 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. lmrat and Anr. B 2008 (11) sec, referred to. 2005 (5) sec 554 referred to Para 7 2008 (11) sec 523 referred to Para 7 c AIR 1965 SC 843 relied on Para 8 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 09.04.2007 of the High D Court Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in Misc. ~ Criminal Case No. 833 of 2007. "' - Ashok Kumar Sharma for the Appellant. C.D. Singh, Sunny Chowdhary, Vairagya Vardhan Dubey, E -. Aditya Singh, Upasana Nath, Sanjay Misra and Raj Singh Rana for the Respondent. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.