IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.772 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ……...Petitioner Versus Inderjeet Singh @ Kaka …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. For the Respondent: Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenge has been laid order dated 18.5.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, thereby discharging the respondent- accused under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that police presented challan in the court of learned Sessions Judge Bilaspur, alleging therein that accused ran over the vehicle of LC Anita No. 228, who 2 was on patrolling duty, on her. On the basis of evidence collected and CCTV footage recording, police presented challan under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC before the learned Sessions Judge, however learned Sessions Judge having perused material adduced on record along with the challan filed under Section 173 of CrPC arrived at a conclusion that no case is made out against the respondent accused under Section 307 of IPC and accordingly, discharged him under aforesaid provision of law and transferred the case to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Sections 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the grounds of petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, is that learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, while discharging the respondent-accused under Section 307 of IPC, failed to take note of the CCTV footage, which clearly suggests that accused attempted to run over his vehicle on the complainant, who was on patrolling duty. 4. Having carefully perused material available on record, this court finds that though at the first instance, police had lodged case under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC against the respondent, but subsequently, 3 deleted aforesaid sections and registered case under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC, but once there is nothing in MLC suggestive of the fact that complainant suffered grievous injuries and respondent accused intentionally attempted to run over his vehicle with an intention to kill the complainant, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Sessions Judge while discharging the respondent accused under Section 307 of IPC. 5. Needless to say, to determine the question whether any offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out, it is not necessary that injury capable of causing death has been inflicted. What is material to attract the provision of Section 307 is the guilty intention or knowledge with which the act was done irrespective of its results. No doubt, intention and knowledge of a person shall always be inferred from the totality of circumstances and cannot be merely measured from the results, but in the case at hand, bare perusal of material adduced on record by the prosecution nowhere suggests that respondent-accused had any intention to kill the complainant, rather he after having seen the police attempted to flee from the spot. Similarly, injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant in the alleged incident have been opined to be simple in nature that too not caused by the act of running over, if any, at the behest of the respondent-accused. 4 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this court finds no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and as such, same deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly. April 16, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge