I. S. ISRANI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is a revision petition under Sec. 397/401 Cr. P. C. against the order dated 4. 6. 1986, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, in criminal case No. 15/86 whereby he ordered to frame the charge against the accused petitioner under sec. 307 IPC. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 11. 3. 1985, a F. I. R. was lodged at Police Station, Malpura, by the injured Ismail, in which he alleged that he was sitting with one Naresh at his vedio shop in Malpura. He had friendly relations with Naresh. While he was closing the door of vedio room at about 8. 30 p. m. Pradeep accused appellant came and caused a knife blow on his neck. On the basis of this information a case under s. 307 PC was registered and after investigation the police submitted a challan against the accused petitoner u/s. 307 I. P. C. in the court of learned C. J. M. who committed the accused petitioner for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, under s. 307 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, on 4. 6. 1986, has framed the charge against the accused petitioner under s. 307 I. P. C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither in the FIR nor in the statement of the injured Ismail, recorded u/s. lol Cr. P. C. there is any allegation that the accused petitioner wanted to cause death of the 'injured Ismail, by causing blow with knife. It has also been stated by the injured that there was no enmity between them and there was no quarrel at the time of incident. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the injury report itself it shows that the injury caused is simple in nature which is 1-1/2" x 1"x 1/2". The Doctor, has also not opined in his report that the injury was sufficient to cause death, it is, therefore, urged that in these circumstances, learned Sessions Judge, has drawn conclusion without any basis from the record that if the accused petitioner had caused the injury with little more force it could have been dangerous to life. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has urged that the accused petitioner has used knife which is a sharp edged weapon and the learned trial court has rightly framed the charge under s. 307 I. P. C.
(3.) MY attention has been drawn to the case of this court. Kajod vs. Rama (1) In this case, the learned Sessions Judge, discharged the accused person for the offence under s. 307 IPC and sent the case of trial to the learned Magistrate for other offences which are triable by the learned Magistrate, it was contended in this case that the accused person inflicted serious and grave injury on 4 persons and looking to the nature of injuries a case was clearly made out u/s 307 I. P. C. It was further submitted that one of the injuries found on Bhagwan Singh was fracture of the skull bones and this grievous injury clearly showed that the offence was of s. 307 IPC. It was also held by this court that the intention of the accused person was not to kill any person but was to take forcible possession of the house occupied by Kajod and for that purpose to inflict injury on the persons who might come in their way to fulfil this object. It was also clear from the prosecution case that the accused persons were armed with sharp edged wea-pons but no injury dangerous to life is alleged to have been inflicted on any one of the injured person by sharp edged weapons. Only one injury on Bhagwan Singh has been shown to be grievous and the same was also inflicted by blunt weapon On this account, it cannot be said that accused had intention to cause death Keeping in view the other facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that case was made out under S. 307 I. P. C. It was, therefore, held that prima-facie no charge is made out under S. 307 IPC MY attention has also been drawn to the case of Munshi Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan (2 ). In this case the injury was caused on the head by the axe depth of which was 1/4". It was held that it shows that enough force was not used by the assailant while inflicting the said injury to the injured. This circumstance leads the court to infer that the assailant never intended to cause death to the injured. It was also to be noted that only one injury was inflicted by the appellant. In this circumstance the conviction under S. 307 IPC cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appellant was acquitted for the charge under S. 307 IPC and was convicted for the offence under S. 324 IPC and was sentenced to one year R. I. In this case, even though the accused petitioner used knife but had caused only simple injury on the injured Ismail. The depth of this injury is also 1/4". He also caused only one injury, therefore in these facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that the accused petitioner had any intention of causing such a grievous injury which could be dangerous to the life of the injured person. I am, therefore, of the opinion that charge under S. 307 I. P. C. cannot be sustained and the accused petitioner is liable to be charged under S. 324 IPC. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed as indicated above. . ;