Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on September 25, 2024, said that the minor nature of injuries is not sufficient reason to not frame a charge under Section 307 IPC, as per the law.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol also emphasised that the question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307, IPC is a question of fact and not one of law. 

The court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment of November 23, 2023, which confirmed the sessions court's order setting the accused free in a case under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC among other offences.

Shoyeb Raja, the complainant-appellant, was appointed Chairman of the District Waqf Board in Seoni, responsible for overseeing Masjid Committees. Following a dispute between the newly appointed committee, led by him, and the previous committee, Raja was verbally abused and physically assaulted, leading to his unconsciousness. He was initially treated at the district hospital and later referred to the Asian Hospital in Nagpur. After his discharge, an FIR was filed on March 9, 2018, under Sections 294, 323, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The high court ruled that no case under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) was made out, dismissing the appellant's criminal revision against the trial court's decision.

This was despite the submission of the medical officer from the District Hospital, Seoni, who had examined the injuries, noting that throttling could have led to respiratory arrest.

Before the top court, the appellant argued that the injuries sustained by him did not rule out charges under Section 307 IPC during the framing of charges. His counsel contended that, given the suspicion of throttling, relying on the medical report to reject the charge was improper, especially since the doctor who authored the report could not be examined in court.

The counsel also pointed to witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which detailed acts of "pressing the mouth, nose, and throat" by the respondents, indicating an intention to kill.

The bench noted that intention in such cases is not always directly proven but can be inferred from the facts and circumstances.

"If the doctor who conducted the examination posits the possibility of throttling, then under what circumstances, without rigorous cross-examination, could it be concluded that the injuries sustained were simple? That apart, even if the injuries were taken as simple, the extent of the injuries are not relevant, if the intent is present," the bench said.

The bench further said it was thus not in agreement with the courts below that intent was absent, as the doctor’s report itself recorded throttling to be reasonably suspected.

"The question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307, IPC is a question of fact and not one of law...In recognition of these self-imposed, long-standing, and justified limitations, interference is to be made, more so, when a court, in arriving at its findings has acted perversely or otherwise improperly," the bench said.

The court allowed the appeal, saying, the nature or extent of injury suffered, are irrelevant factors for the conviction under this Section, so long as the injury is inflicted with animus and the minor nature of injuries is not sufficient reason to not frame a charge under Section 307 IPC.

It directed the trial court to make the eight respondent-accused stand trial for all the offences for which charges had been framed, as also Section 307 of the IPC, and proceed on its own merits, as per law, uninfluenced by the observations.

Case Title: Shoyeb Raza Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors