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 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.
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.
Apex court held that
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;
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.”
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