Intention Or Knowledge That Death Could Have Been Caused Is Relevant For Framing Charges Under S. 308 IPC: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The Delhi High Court while recently dismissing the revision petition against an order passed by Additional Session Judge for framing charges for offences u/s 308, 385, and 34 IPC has observed that intention or knowledge that under such circumstances death could have been caused or not is relevant for framing charges u/s 308 IPC.

“To secure conviction under Section 308 IPC the prosecution must prove that the accused had requisite intention or knowledge to cause culpable homicide. It is crucial to determine whether the accused had intention or knowledge that the injuries inflicted on the victim would cause the death and as a result thereof the accused could be guilty of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The intention can be established only at the time of trial. Four people have assaulted the respondent/victim and he has been hit on his head by an iron rod. Whether the intention was to cause death or not can only be established at the trial and not at the time of discharge”, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad noted.

In the present matter, on 10.10.2016, an FIR was registered u/s 308, 385, and 34 IPC upon receipt of information that a man was stabbed in front of Okhla Sabzi Mandi at about 3:25 AM. Vide order dated 07.03.2018, the learned Additional Session Judge-06, (South-East), Saket Courts, found that prima facie a case under section 308 IPC was made out against the accused and framed charges under Sections 308, 384 and 34 IPC. Thereafter the accused/petitioner filed a revision petition u/s 397/401 of CrPC against the impugned order dated 07.03.2018.

The Court remarked that infliction of injury because of an iron rod on the victim's head rules out the case of sudden quarrel. Further for framing charges, the fact that iron rod has not been recovered was of no relevance at the stage of framing charges.

The petitioner’s Counsel while relying on the judgements in Narinder Kaur Oberoi v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del. 7864, and Rajiv Sharma v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del. 12138 contended that in view of the injuries suffered by the petitioner charges under Section 308 IPC could not be framed. The Counsel further argued that since the nature of injury was only simple and the doctor opined that the injury was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary circumstances charges under Section 308 IPC could not be framed.

On the other hand, the Ld APP contended that the nature of injury could not be a decisive factor at the time of framing charge under Section 308 IPC. The Counsel also submitted that the fact that the victim was hit by an iron rod on the head was sufficient to frame charge u/s 308 IPC.

Reliance was placed by the Bench on the Apex Court judgement in Sunil Kumar v. N.C.T. of Delhi, (1998) 8 SCC 557 in which the Court while discussing the concept of discharge u/s 308 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 observed that,

“4. The view taken by the High Court is obviously erroneous because offence punishable under Section 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not. It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 308 IPC whereas punishment for simple hurts can be meted out under Sections 323 and 324 and for grievous hurts under Sections 325 and 326 IPC............?”

“The facts which are relevant at this stage are that the victim has suffered an injury on head which is a vital part of the body and that the injury has been caused by hitting him with an iron rod. The fact that the injury suffered by the victim is simple might not be a very relevant circumstance at this juncture in view of the circumstances of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar v. N.C.T. of Delhi (supra).”, the Bench while dismissing the petition observed.

Case Title: Salman & Ors v. State & Anr

Law Point/Statute Involved: Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 & Section 308, 385, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.