Allahabad High Court
Surya Bali Singh vs State Of U.P. & Others on 30 July, 2010
Author: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Bench: Ashok Kumar Roopanwal
Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1830 of 2010 Petitioner :- Surya Bali Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Gyanendra Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. Ballia, in S.T. No. 406 of 2004, whereby application 252 Kha moved by the revisionist was rejected. By this application a request was made that a charge u/s 307 I.P.C. be also framed against the accused persons.
It appears from the record that initially the FIR at the initiation of the revisionist was written against the accused persons u/s 307, 504, 427 I.P.C. After investigation charge sheet was submitted u/s 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and the charges were also framed under these sections. However, an application was moved by the prosecution on 9.2.2007 for framing a charge u/s 307 I.P.C. and that application was rejected. Against that order the prosecution went to the High Court. The High Court found that by the time the order was passed by the court it was a correct order and it was further directed by the High Court that the request for amendment of the charge may be considered by the court u/s 216 Cr.P.C. after recording of evidence. Thereafter statements of PW1- Suryabali, PW2- Sher Singh, PW3- Shyam Bahadur, PW4- Kalawati Devi and PW5- Prabhakar Singh were recorded and thereafter the request for amendment of the charge u/s 307 I.P.C. was reconsidered by the court and the court again expressed the same view that no charge u/s 307 I.P.C. was made out from the statements of the witnesses.
Heard Mr. G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by Mr. Singh that two persons from the side of the complainant were injured, they were Shyam Bahadur and Sher Singh. Both received injuries on their head and therefore, a charge u/s 307 I.P.C. was perfectly made out and the court below wrongly refused to frame the charge.
A look at the definition u/s 307 I.P.C. would reveal that the injury is not the sole criteria for ascertaining as to what charge is to be framed. The intention is to be gathered from the whole circumstances and the injury may afford a valuable clue for ascertaining the intention. In view of all this, if we analyse the injuries, we would find that though the injuries were on the head but were not capable to commit murder. The injuries on the head were not repeated, therefore, it cannot be said that during the scuffle the intention was to commit murder. From the evidence of the witnesses it is apparent that none of the witnesses stated that it was an attempt of murder. They stated that the dispute had arisen when certain wall was being constructed.
There is no evidence on the record that the attempt was made to commit murder. Use of a gun is established but inspite of the firing having taken place no injury of fire arm could be inflicted upon the injured.
Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case it was not an offence covered within the meaning of section 307 I.P.C.
Consequently, this revision has no force and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2010 Pcl