DATE: 29/10/2025
COURT: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
BENCH: Justice Gajendra Singh
FACTS:
This criminal revision was filed under
Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 challenging
the legality of charges framed under Section 109(1) and Section 351(3) (Head
Nos. 2 and 4) in Sessions Trial No. 34/2025 arising out of Crime No. 232/2025
registered at Police Station Nagda, Ujjain. The incident occurred on 22 May
2025 at around 1:45 a.m. near Shiv Mandir in front of Nagda Police Station,
where the victim, Rahul, sustained knife injuries. The trial court framed
charges under Sections 296, 109(1), 115(2), and 315(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The revision petition challenged only the charges relating
to Sections 109(1) and 351(3), arguing that the injuries did not meet the
statutory threshold required for such offences.
In support of the challenge, the petitioner
relied on a medical opinion dated 11 June 2025 from Indubhai Parekh Memorial
Hospital, Nagda. Dr. Ajay Kabra noted that the sharp incised wounds on Rahul’s
left arm, measuring 7 × 2 cm, were neither deep nor dangerous to life, and the
second wound, though incised, carried no risk of death without treatment. The
petitioner contended that the FIR was registered under the influence of the
complainant without seeking a medical query, and that the trial court erred in framing
charges under Section 109(1) because the injuries were not life-threatening.
The State opposed the revision, and the court reviewed the case diary and
materials on record.
ISSUES:
The principal issue before the Court was
whether the trial court committed an error in framing charges under Sections
109(1) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023, despite medical evidence suggesting that
the injuries inflicted on the victim were not dangerous to life. The question
was whether, at the stage of framing charges, the nature of the injuries alone
was sufficient to negate an offence akin to Section 307 IPC (now corresponding
provision in BNS), and whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge based
on the medical findings.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court dismissed the criminal revision
petition, holding that the trial court had committed no illegality in framing
the charges under the contested heads. Upon examining the evidence, including
the victim’s statement and medical records, the Court held that there existed
“grave suspicion” against the accused sufficient to justify proceeding to
trial. It therefore affirmed the charges and refused to interfere with the
trial court’s order.
The Court relied extensively on established
principles governing the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. (now
Section 250 of the BNSS), which limit judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing
charges to determining whether the materials disclose a prima facie case or
grave suspicion. The Court reiterated that a judge is not required to
meticulously evaluate the probative value of evidence or conduct a
“mini-trial.” It emphasised that even if two views are possible, and one of
them raises grave suspicion against the accused, charges must be framed. The
Court cited precedents such as P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, Sajjan Kumar v.
CBI, and State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, all of which reiterate that
discharge is appropriate only where the materials disclose no grounds for
proceeding. The role of the judge at this stage is not to determine whether the
case will result in conviction but merely to assess whether the prosecution’s
materials warrant a full trial.
Applying these principles, the Court held
that the nature of injuries is not determinative of whether an offence
analogous to Section 307 IPC is made out. What matters is the intention or
knowledge with which the assault was carried out, and whether the act, if it
had resulted in death, would constitute murder. In this case, the victim
Rahul’s statement indicated that the accused, Vivek @ Vicky, had threatened to
kill him and then attempted to strike his neck with a knife, a vital part of
the body. Rahul intercepted the blow with his arm, resulting in two incised
wounds, with medical records noting continuous bleeding, a possible deep vessel
injury, and torn muscles and arteries. These circumstances constituted grave
suspicion regarding the accused’s intention to cause fatal harm. The Court held
that such material was sufficient for framing the contested charges, and the
medical opinion relied upon by the petitioner did not negate the strong prima
facie case emerging from the overall evidence. Accordingly, the revision had no
merit and was dismissed.
ANALYSIS:
This case revolves around the scope of
judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charges under Section 250 of the BNSS
(formerly Section 227 Cr.P.C.). The petitioner sought discharge from charges
under Sections 109(1) and 351(3) of the BNS, asserting that the injuries
sustained by the victim were not dangerous to life and therefore did not meet
the threshold for offences akin to an attempt to murder. However, the core
legal question was not the final determination of guilt, nor the ultimate
nature of the injuries, but whether the materials on record were sufficient to
create “grave suspicion” that the accused had acted with the requisite
intention or knowledge. The Court, following multiple precedents, reiterated
that the test at this stage is limited to whether the prosecution's case, taken
at face value, supports a prima facie inference against the accused. The
medical opinion cited by the petitioner did not conclusively rule out the
seriousness of the attack, especially in light of the victim’s testimony describing
a knife assault targeted at the neck, an inherently vital part of the body.
The Court’s analysis underscored that the
intention behind the act, rather than the actual injury caused, is central to
evaluating offences equivalent to Section 307 IPC. The combination of threats
to kill, the targeted attack on a vulnerable area, and the victim’s defensive
wounds constituted material capable of creating grave suspicion regarding the
accused’s intent to cause fatal harm. Thus, even though the medical report
described the injuries as not dangerous to life, the surrounding circumstances,
including continuous bleeding, torn muscles and arteries, and the potential for
deeper vessel injury supported the trial court’s decision to frame charges. The
Court emphasised that engaging in a deeper evaluation of evidence or accepting
the defence’s interpretation at this stage would amount to conducting a
“mini-trial,” which is impermissible. Consequently, the High Court upheld the
charges and dismissed the revision, confirming that the matter must proceed to
trial for a full evaluation of evidence.
info@adhwaitha.com