24.08.2026 Item no.04. Ct. No.237 Suman C.R.R. 4321 of 2025 With CRAN 1 of 2026 Rathindranath Mondal and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Chitrak Biswas ..for the petititioners Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee Mr. Jahangir Hossain ..for O.P. No.2. Mr. Imran Siddique Mr. Abhinav Rakshit ..for the State The petitioners challenge the order dated August 5, 2025, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking discharge of the accused persons, was rejected. It appears that the present criminal proceedings were instituted on the basis of a First Information Report lodged by one Kishore Mondal on June 16, 2022. The de facto complainant alleged that, on the morning of June 16, 2022, his brother, Madhusudan Mondal, engaged certain labourers to carry out repairs to their dwelling house. At that point of time, the accused persons, owing to previous enmity, allegedly obstructed the repair work with a spade and an iron crowbar. When his brother requested the accused persons not to indulge in such illegal acts, they allegedly assaulted Madhusudan Mondal with a stick and an iron crowbar (Sabbal). It was specifically alleged that, when the de facto complainant, accompanied by his son and uncle, attempted to rescue Madhusudan Mondal, the accused persons, with an intention to kill him, struck him with a bamboo stick on his head and left shoulder, as a result of which Madhusudan allegedly sustained a fracture to his head and an injury to his left shoulder. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Rampurhat Police Station Case No. 332 of 2022, dated June 16, 2022, was registered under Sections 341/323/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a charge-sheet under the aforesaid penal provisions. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which came to be rejected by the impugned order. In assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum, Mr. Satadru Lahiri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, has, however, confined his submissions to the applicability of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in the present case. Mr. Lahiri submits that the gravest allegation against the petitioners is that they struck the victim with a bamboo stick on his head. The fact remains, however, that the victim was discharged after 2 only one day of hospitalisation, and the discharge summary issued by the hospital does not indicate that the victim had sustained any injury to his head. Referring to the prescription issued by the attending Medical Officer, it is submitted that only a few painkillers were advised to be taken by the victim. Mr. Lahiri submits that, unless an intention to cause death is evident, a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. It is contended that, although the alleged site of injury was the head of the victim, such circumstance, by itself, does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for Opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand, submits that the First Information Report specifically alleges that the victim was struck with a bamboo stick on his head. Reference has further been made to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it has allegedly been stated that the victim was assaulted with a spade and an iron crowbar (Sabbal) and that his head was fractured. Mr. Mukherjee submits that, at the stage of framing of charge, a full-fledged trial is not contemplated. According to him, if a prima facie suspicion appears from the materials on record regarding the commission of the alleged offence, a charge ought to be framed. Learned advocate appearing for the State supports the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge by submitting 3 that it is not merely the nature of the injury sustained by the victim which is relevant. According to the learned advocate, it is the intention of the accused that has to be ascertained in order to arrive at a conclusion regarding the alleged commission of an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of the case diary produced before this Court makes it clear that the victim remained in the hospital for one day following the alleged incident and was thereafter discharged. The medical documents forming part of the case diary do not indicate that the victim had sustained any head injury. Nor is there anything in the medical records to suggest that the victim suffered any fracture as a consequence of the alleged assault. The discharge certificate clearly records that the victim was discharged with advice to take certain painkillers and other associated medication. It is true that the nature of the injury sustained by the victim, by itself, is not determinative of the applicability of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Equally, the intention to cause death has to be gathered from the attending circumstances, irrespective of the nature or gravity of the injury sustained by the victim. In other words, even a grave injury would not, by itself, warrant framing of a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code where the intention to cause death is not, prima facie, discernible from the materials on record. Mr. Lahiri has relied upon a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 4 1100 of 2025, dated January 16, 2026. In the said judgment, it has been held that the statute does not prescribe any particular kind or degree of injury—simple, grievous, or life-threatening—for attracting the offence. The decisive and indispensable requirement remains the existence of homicidal intention or knowledge at the time of commission of the act. Intention, being a mental element, is incapable of direct proof and must necessarily be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of each case. Such intention may be gathered from the nature of the act, the weapon used, the number and location of the injuries, the manner in which the assault was carried out, the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the incident, and the degree of prior animosity, if any, between the parties. Mere existence of discord, acrimony, or strained relations of an ordinary nature was held to be insufficient to infer an intention to kill. Having regard to the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that there is nothing on record which, prima facie, discloses any homicidal intention or knowledge on the part of the petitioners in the present case. The alleged use of a bamboo stick, coupled with the fact that the victim was discharged after one day with advice to take painkillers and other medication, does not, in the circumstances of the present case, suggest that the victim was assaulted with a deliberate design to cause his death. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the animosity between the parties was of such an acute or intense nature as could 5 reasonably lead to the conclusion that the petitioners intended to kill the victim. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that no charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ought to have been framed against the accused persons. Accordingly, the order dated August 5, 2025, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum, is set aside insofar as it relates to the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Court below shall be at liberty to proceed with the framing of charges under the remaining provisions. Accordingly, C.R.R. 4321 of 2025 along with CRAN 1 of 2026 is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 6