VANEET MAHAJAN versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 1007 · Decided: 13-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2017] 3 S.C.R. 1007 
VANEET MAHAJAN 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 718 of 2017) 
APRIL 13,2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 307 - Attempt to murder - Framing of 
charge u/s. 307 - On facts, the High Court deleted charge ji-amed 
A 
B 
u/s. 307 while maintaining the charge in respect of other offences -
C 
Sustainability of - Held: Approach of the High Court is clearly 
unsustainable - In the cha/Ian filed by the police after investigating 
into the incident, it was categorically recorded on the basis of the 
statement of the complainant that 10-12 persons armed with swords, 
baseball, etc. suddenly attacked the victims in a car, by smashing 
the front, backside and driving side glass of the car - Appellant D 
and other victim suffered grievous injuries inflicted with sharp-edged 
weapon as also simple injuries - Thus, having regard to the statement 
of the persons and the medical report, High Court could not have 
concluded, at the stage of framing of the charge itself, that guilty 
intention of the accused persons was conspicuously missing - Facts 
E 
of the case indicate that the ingredients of s. 307 are made out -
Thus, the order of the High Court is quashed and set aside - Accused 
persons also to be tried for offence uls. 307. 
Anjani Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and Another 
(2014) 12 SCC 286 : [2014] 5 SCR 562 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[2014] 5 SCR 562 
referred to 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 718 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2015 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!. Rev. Petition No. 922 of 
2015. 
Manu Sharma, Ms. Ridhima Mandhar, M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia 
1007 
F 
G 
H 
1008 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A Shakil, Ujjwal Singh, Mojahid Karim Khan. Advs. for the Appellant. 
B 
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv., Ajit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, 
Ms. Shweta Jain Pahlad Singh Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The following Judgment of the Cou1t was delivered: 
JUDGMENT 
1. Leave granted. 
2. Heard the matter finally. 
3. The appellant is the complainant at whose instance FIR No. 
C 
138/2014 dated I 0.05.2014 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, 
Amritsar, Punjab, under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149, 120-
B and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The matter was investigated 
and challan was filed in the Court. The Sessions Judge framed charges 
under the aforesaid provisions, including Section 307 IPC. This order of 
D framing of charge was challenged by respondent No. 2 by filing revision 
petition in the High Court. The High Court has, vide the impugned 
judgment dated28.08.2015, partly allowed the said revision petition and 
deleted the charge framed under Section 307 IPC as unsustainable while 
maintaining the charge in respect of other offences. Being dissatisfied 
of the aforesaid outcome, the appellant has challenged the said order on 
E the ground that the Sessions Judge has rightly framed the charge under 
Section 307 IPC as well. 
F 
4. The prosecution story, on the basis of which FIR was registered 
and chargesheet was filed in the Court, may be recapitulated in brief. 
5. According to the appellant, who is a practicing Advocate enrolled 
with the Bar Counsel of Punjab, he was brutally attacked on I 0.05.2004 
with intention to kill him, his brother,Avnish Mahajan, and their employee, 
Avtar Singh, by 10-12 persons, who were armed with sharp and deadly 
weapons including Gandassa, daatars, baseball bat, etc. at the instance 
ofoneAnil Joshi, Cabinet Minister in Punjab Government. Further, the 
G said. attack by the 11 accused persons named in the Final Report under 
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), including 
respondent Nos. 2 to 4, was in execution of the common object of the 
assailants to punish the appellant/ teach him a lesson for instituting four 
cases against the saidAnil Joshi. Resultantly, the appellant suffered 11 
H injuries, including two grievous injuries, and he remained admitted in 
VANEET MAHAJAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
1009 
Hospital for a period of 12 days. Similarly, victim Avnish Mahajan A 
sustained three injuries, one of which was declared grievous in nature, 
and victimAvtar Singh sustained four simple injuries. During the course 
ofinvestigation carried out by the Special Investigation team, 11 accused 
persons, including respondent Nos. 2 to 4 came to be arrested; weapons
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.