Brief Facts
- Shoyeb Raja, the Complainant-Appellant, was appointed as the Chairman of the District Waqf Board in Seoni. A conflict arose between the newly appointed Masjid Committee, headed by the Complainant, and the previous committee, leading to an altercation.
- The Complainant was physically assaulted and rendered unconscious, following which, he was treated at a hospital, and an FIR was filed against the Accused u/s 294, 323, 506, r/w 34, IPC, 1860.
- The Accused were initially granted bail but were later taken into custody u/s 307, IPC.
- The framing of charges by the Sessions Court was challenged in the High Court.
- The High Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge u/s 307, based on medical reports, which indicated that the injuries were not life-threatening. As a result, the court discharged the Accused of the charges u/s 307 IPC while confirming the charges under other Sections.
- A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court against the dropping of charges u/s 307, IPC.
- Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in discharging the accused for the offence u/s 307 IPC? - Whether the charges under section 307 IPC can be framed even when the nature of injury is minor injury?
Held
- Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed the Ld. Trial Court to proceed with the framing of charges against the Accused, including Sec. 307 IPC. It emphasized that the trial should proceed on its merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in this Appeal, and be conducted expeditious.
- The Court relied on the case of Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand 2004 12 SCC 220 to hold that 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.
- Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s dismissal of the Sec. 307 charge, noting that while the injuries were deemed superficial, the medical report highlighted the possibility of throttling, which could have led to respiratory arrest. The intent to cause death, as required u/s 307 IPC, could not be ruled out based solely on the superficiality of the injuries.
- The Court further examined the applicability of Sec. 34, IPC, which pertains to criminal acts committed by several persons with a common intention. It was observed that the presence of a common intention could make all co-Accused liable for the act, even if they did not directly inflict the injuries.
Relevant Para Nos.
- 13, 16