1 2025:CGHC:5800 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 138 of 2025 Sumit Kumar Kashyap S/o Ramkrishan Kashyap Aged About 18 Years R/o Vill- Kamta, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Dist- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station, Shivrinarayan, Dist.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 31/01/2025 1. With the consent of the respective parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved of the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Session Judge, Janjgir, District-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 101 of 2024 (Annexure A-1) whereby the charges have been framed against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Section 296, 351 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The complaint of the complainant is such that on 09.07.2024 at about 4 PM after completing all his school work he was standing in the school ground, at the relevant point of time the present 2 applicant who is considered to be his old school student suddenly came and started using filthy language against him and with the intent to commit murder caused an injury in his neck with a knife. While resisting called the other school teacher namely Chandrahas Patel, Ishwari Prasad Kashyap and other teachers. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital by the teachers for treatment. On the said complaint, crime was registered against the present applicant as Crime No. 275/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 296, 351 and 109 of BNS, 2023. Charge sheet was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court on 04.01.2025 is illegal, improper and contrary to the law. He submits that the learned trial court failed to consider the nature of injury which is very simple in nature and the complainant was not even admitted for a single day. The motive of the applicant was not of murdering the complainant thus Section 109 of BNS, 2023 does not attract in this case. It do not tends toward the previous malice on the part of the applicant. Therefore, he prays to set aside the order dated 04.01.2025 in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the injury were not so simple in nature and were not restricted to only one injury. The intention of murdering the complainant was clear by way of committing the crime by the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the impugned order dated 04.01.2025 along with all the other relevant documents with utmost circumspection. 7. In order to decide thee instant revision, the statement of the present witnesses at the spot were of the utmost importance. According to the complaint of the complainant his wife who 3 called 112 for the ambulance, Badhas Patel and Ishwari Prasad Kashyap came in between and save him and thereby took him to the hospital for treatment. 8. Wife of the complainant clearly stated that when she heard the sound of his husband who was calling for help she along with two other teachers of the same school went there and saw that the applicant who was the former student of the school was having a sharp knife by which with the intent of killing injured her husband multiple times and on various parts of his body. 9. Chandrahas Kumar Patel as well as Ishwari Prasad Kashyap has also submitted the same statements and stated that the applicant was in the intent of killing the injured by a knife. 10. Moreover the doctor report clearly depicts that the incised wounds were not only one but was four measuring 3.5cm*2cm*2.5cm, 3cm*2cm*2.5cm, 3cm*2cm*2cm and 6cm*3cm*2cm and was caused by an hard and sharp object. 11. Previous rivalry is also drawn in this case, as the applicant was the former student of the school in which the present complainant is working. The applicant was transferred just before the incident. Moreover the complainant stated that applicant while hitting him stated that he has beaten me before everyone therefore, he will kill him. Thus from this it is clear that there was a previous rivalry between the complainant and the applicant. 12. Therefore, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the statement made by the complainant and other witnesses as well as the report of the doctor, prima facie shows that the applicant with the intent of murdering injured the complainant with the sharp knife. Section 109 of BNS, 2023 is clearly made out in this case as the motive of the applicant is very clear. Therefore, there is no illegality and there is no 4 perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. Hence, the present criminal revision being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed. 14. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza