CAUSE TITLE:
Ramji Prasad V/s State of U.P. and Another
DATE OF ORDER:
17th January 2023
JUDGE(S):
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
PARTIES:
Revisionist: Ramji Prasad And 4 Others
Respondent: State of U.P. and Another.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’ or ‘the Court’), has stated that, it is not the consequence that constitute a crime under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code; rather, it is the intent or understanding of the perpetrator as well as the conditions surrounding the crime.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Indian Penal Code 1860
- Section 308 - states anyone who does any act with the purpose, knowledge, or circumstances that, if the conduct resulted in death, would not constitute murder, is guilty of culpable homicide. He will be punished with any type of imprisonment for a time that may last up to three years, a penalty, or both. If the act injures someone, the offender will be punished with either type of imprisonment for a period up to seven years, penalty, or a combination of the two.
BRIEF FACTS:
- The FIR was filed alleged that the accused stated abusing the revisionists while standing at the door of the revisionists in the meantime other family members of the accused joined and continued with the assault. The complainant suffered severe injuries and fainted on the spot. The culprits ran away and after the medical examination a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.
- According to a doctor, injuries are usually of a basic type. On the basis of the CT scan and X-ray reports, no supplemental report has been created. Therefore, act constituted under section 308 is not violated. After hearing from all parties, the learned trial court dismissed the aforementioned application in the contested order.
- The present criminal revision is filed with the intention to invalidate the judgement made on July 8, 2022, by Sessions Judge Varanasi in S.T. No. 268 of 2022 Crime No. 480 of 2015, which was made in accordance with sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
QUESTIONS ROSE:
Whether the ‘injuries’ caused also constitute the material under section 308 of IPC?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE REVISIONISTS
- It is contended that the injuries are simple according to the medical examination which specifies that allegation under section 308 of IPC is invalid. The court also considered this point while awarding the bail application
- It is argued that subordinate court has not considered the circumstantial evidence, especially the medical report on record, while passing the order and section 308 of IPC has been misinterpreted by the court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It has been submitted by the council that the assault committed was with the intention of committing murder.
- The FIR clearly stated that the accused were loaded with an iron rod, a danda, and a local handgun. They attacked the wounded person with a lathi, danda, and a country-made pistol's butt, inflicting head injuries.
- It is likewise accepted practise to use the prima-facie case test when drafting charges. A court may legitimately assert that a prima-facie case against an accused person appears and that the charge's formulation is appropriate if there is reason to believe that the accused has executed the offence. A case for setting charges exists if the court determines that the conduct of the offence is likely based on the evidence on file.
- Only in circumstances where the court is certain that there are absolutely no possibilities of punishment and the trial court will constitute a futile attempt then an order of discharge be merited.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
The court upheld the order of the Session court and rejected the application of discharge submitted by the accused, alleged under the section 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
The learned trial court has evaluated all of the relevant facts, circumstantial evidence, and other material, and after doing so, has determined that there is enough evidence to support charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 308, and 504 of the IPC. As a result, the application for discharge has been denied. So the contested summons order is lawful. Thereby the court dismissed the revision as there is lack of merits in the case.
CONCLUSION
There are two portions to Section 308 of the IPC. The first section relates to scenarios in which there is no harm, whereas the second section deals with situations in which there is injury. Therefore, the act itself, the conditions in which it was performed, and not the damage, are what constitute the material. The charges in the FIR, the evidence or other materials, as well as all other pertinent facts of the case, should be used to infer the purpose or knowledge and the conditions under which the offence was committed.
In the present case the Court noted that the prima-facie case test must be employed when framing charges and that if there is reason to believe that the accused constituted the crime, a court may legitimately state that a prima-facie case exists against him and that framing of charges is appropriate.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
