1 2025:CGHC:15242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 416 of 2025 1 - Jai Ujwane S/o Upendra Ujwane Aged About 21 Years R/o Om Complex, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Devendra Verma S/o Ramavtar Verma Aged About 20 Years R/o Rajkatta Village- P.S.- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - J. R. Sai S/o Lt. J. Kumar Sai Aged About 22 Years R/o Indira Nagar, Dongargarh, P.S.- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ----Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Alok Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State : Ms. Prabha Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01/04/2025 1. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 02/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) whereby charges have been altered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dongargarh for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC to 325 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the present case is that the incident took place on 2 15.05.2024 at 09:15 pm in D-core Gym Mahaveer Para, Dongargarh, there was a dispute started between the applicant and two accused namely Devendra Verma and J.R. Sai. The accused threatened to kill the applicant and beat him with hands, fists and feet. The applicant suffered serious injuries in the jaw and chest. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged in the Dongargarh Police Station bearing crime No. 0278 under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC on 15.05.2024 against the accused namely JR Sai and Devemdra Verma. 3. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused, Non-applicant No. 2 & 3 and Section 307 of IPC was added to the charges. After hearing the argument before framing the charges, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused (Non- Applicant No. 2 & 3) of the charge under Section 307 of IPC and altered the charge to Section 325 IPC vide order dated 20.02.2025. As the remaining charges were triable by Judicial Magistrate Junior Division, the case has been transferred to the JMJD, Dongargarh for conducting the trial. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh framed the charges against the accused (non-applicant No. 2 & 3) for commission of offence under Section 294, 323, 506 Part-2 325 read with 34 of IPC and the case is fixed for recording of evidence on 28.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the medical and X-ray Report, the applicant’s jaw was broken in the fight and it was fixed with wire and screw. The Doctor also opined that the injuries were serious and if the treatment had not been given immediately to the applicant, there was a risk of death. The Doctor also mentioned that the applicant suffered permanent grievous injury. 3 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the injury sustained by the applicant should have been considered in the present case and it is the matter of evidence, however, before recording the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dongargarh discharged the accused of the charges of 307 of IPC only based on their presumption. 6. He further submits that the act and conduct of the present accused (Non-applicant No. 2 & 3) fulfill the ingredients of charges under Section 307 of IPC and there is sufficient proof available against the two accused to be charged for the said offence, therefore accused should not have been acquitted from the charges under Section 307 of IPC. 7. Section 307 of IPC reads as under:- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. 8. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are 4 really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under Section 307 of IPC. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 of IPC merely because there was no intention of the accused for causing death to the applicant. 9. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel. 10.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11.On perusal of records, it transpires the fact that learned Additional Session Judge acquitted the accused (Non-Applicant No. 2 & 3) of the charges under Section 307 of IPC and altered the charge to Section 325 IPC observing therein that:- “Since the incident took place in public place, inside the gym and videography of the CCTV camera inside the gym has been presented by the investigator, in which the footage of quarrel and sudden fight between the two accused in front of other people present in the gym is visible. Since there is no evidence of any old enmity between the two parties. In such a situation, the intention of the accused cannot be to kill and there are many other iron equipment in the gym, by hitting with which someone can be killed, but in the CCTV footage the accused persons are only visible to beat the applicant with their hands and fists and the applicant has also stated the same. In such a situation, the act of the accused does not appear to be an attempt to kill but to cause grievous hurt. Therefore, it is not 5 appropriate to frame charges against the accused under Section 307/34 IPC. Therefore the accused are discharged of the charge under Section 307/34 of IPC and held that prima facie case is made out under Section 294, 323, 325 and 506 of IPC. 12. Perusing the finding of the learned Additional Session Judge, I do not find any ground for interference in the instant case as the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error which may call any interference by this Court. 13.Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. 14.However, during trial if any evidence or any development arises, the applicant would be at liberty to take recourse of law available to him under law. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti