Framing of Charges in Attempt to Murder Case: Supreme Court Orders Inclusion of Section 307 IPC

In a crucial ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of framing charges under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) in the case of Bihari Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.. The case revolved around an altercation that led to severe injuries, with the prosecution alleging an intent to kill. However, both the trial court and the High Court had discharged the accused from the charge of attempt to murder, prompting the complainant to approach the Supreme Court.

The apex court ruled in favor of framing charges under Section 307 IPC, emphasizing that at the stage of charge framing, courts should not meticulously scrutinize medical reports or attempt to weigh the evidence. The ruling reinforces the principle that a prima facie case should be sufficient for the framing of charges.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose in Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, where respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4 were accused of attacking the complainant, Bihari Lal. The altercation resulted in serious injuries, and the prosecution charged the accused under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including:

Section 307 (attempt to murder)
Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt)
Section 325 (causing grievous hurt)
Section 336 (endangering life or personal safety)
Section 341 (wrongful restraint)
Section 34 (common intention)

The accused challenged the Section 307 charge, arguing that the medical reports did not substantiate an intent to kill.

Arguments by the Respondent (Accused Persons)

The accused put forth the following arguments:

The injuries sustained by the complainant were not life-threatening.
The medical reports did not conclusively indicate an intention to kill.
The charge of attempt to murder should not be framed based solely on the nature of injuries.
The trial court rightly discharged them from Section 307 IPC.

Trial Court and High Court Rulings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, accepted the arguments of the accused and discharged them from the charge under Section 307 IPC. The trial court ruled that the medical reports did not sufficiently indicate an intent to kill.

The complainant challenged this decision before the Rajasthan High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court’s ruling.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Bihari Lal)

The complainant, dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, approached the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued:

The injuries inflicted were severe and could have been fatal.
The accused used weapons in a manner that demonstrated an intent to kill.
The trial court and the High Court erroneously examined medical reports instead of considering the broader context of the attack.
At the stage of charge framing, courts should not conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court found fault with the approach taken by the lower courts. The justices ruled:

“Both the courts below erred in discharging respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from the charge of Section 307 IPC. In other words, both the courts below erred in holding that no prima facie case is made out against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 307 IPC.”

The Court emphasized that the medical reports were not the sole determining factor:

“The stage to appreciate the evidence with a view to find fault or/and inconsistencies in the two medical reports would arise only when the prosecution leads evidence by examining the doctors in support of the medical reports. That stage is yet to come in this case.”

The Supreme Court concluded that a case under Section 307 IPC was indeed made out against the accused, and therefore, the charge should have been framed accordingly.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court. It directed the Additional Sessions Judge to frame the charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused.

“The Additional Sessions Judge, who is seized of the trial, is directed to frame the charge under Section 307 IPC against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein.”

The Court, however, allowed the accused to argue for discharge after evidence had been recorded:

“We, however, make it clear that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 will be entitled to argue after the evidence is adduced that no case is made out against them under Section 307 IPC and the Court will decide the matter on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution on its merits strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.”

Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for criminal jurisprudence:

Framing of charges: The judgment reaffirms that courts should not conduct a detailed examination of evidence at the stage of charge framing.
Attempt to murder cases: The ruling clarifies that intent can be inferred from the nature of the attack, not just the injuries sustained.
Prosecution’s burden of proof: The decision ensures that prosecution witnesses, including medical experts, have an opportunity to present their findings before charges are dismissed.
Protection of victims’ rights: The ruling prevents premature discharge of accused individuals in cases involving serious offenses.

This judgment reinforces the principle that prima facie evidence is sufficient for framing charges and ensures that accused individuals cannot evade trial through premature judicial scrutiny.

Petitioner Name: Bihari Lal.
Respondent Name: The State of Rajasthan & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 15-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bihari Lal vs The State of Rajasth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category