According to the Allahabad High Court, it is not the injuries that constitute an offense under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code; rather, it is the intention or knowledge of the perpetrator as well as the circumstances surrounding the crime.
When upholding an order of the Sessions Judge in Varanasi rejecting the discharge request made by a man accused of violating sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi bench made this observation.
Two portions to Section 308
There are two portions to Section 308 of the IPC. The first section relates to no-injury situations, while the second part discusses how the harm was brought about. Therefore, the circumstances surrounding the act and not the damage are what constitute the substance, the Court noted.
The Court further noted that the prima-facie case test must be employed when framing charges and that if there is reason to believe that the accused committed the crime, a court may legitimately state that a prima-facie case exists against him and that framing of charges is appropriate.
The Court found justification in the order of the Sessions Judge, Varanasi in rejecting the accused's discharge plea because there are allegations in the FIR that the accused were armed with an iron rod, danda, and country-made pistol and they assaulted the injured with a lathi, danda, and the butt of the country-made pistol, causing a head injury.
Essentially, according to the FIR in this case, the accused persons assaulted the complainant and his brother using an iron rod, bricks, and the butt of a country-made pistol, seriously injuring him in the head. They then fled, believing the complainant and his brother to be dead.
Claims of revisionists
A charge sheet was filed against each of the named defendants after an investigation and a medical examination of the injured. In their plea for discharge under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused revisionists claimed that the injured had not endured any severe harm.
They argued that the medical examiner's opinion that the injuries were minor was supported by the doctor. Their additional argument was that no supplemental report had been created using the X-Ray report and CT scan, and as a result, there was no violation of Section 308 established.
However, following a hearing with both parties, the trial court denied the aforementioned application in the contested ruling. Angered by it, the revisionists filed the current revision plea, in which their attorney advanced similar justifications.
Contentions of state
On the other hand, the state's attorney contended that the assault had been committed with the purpose to kill, resulting in the injuries of two people and that the trial court's decision to reject the accused's plea for discharge was reasonable.
After hearing from both sides, the court noted that the lower court had examined all of the facts, pieces of evidence, and other materials on file, and after doing so, had determined that there was enough evidence to support the accusation.
As a result, the Court rejected the revision argument.