Summary of the Judgement
Case Name: Shoeyb Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Date: 25th September 2024
Judges: Hon’ble Mr Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates: Varsha Mendiratta
Acts and Sections Involved:
Section 307 (Attempt to murder), Section 294, Section 323, Section 506, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Cited Judgments:
State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 239
State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao, (2003) 10 SCC 434
Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 72
Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 12 SCC 220
Chhota Ahirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 4 SCC 126
Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 7 SCC 521
Introduction
The judgment in Shoeyb Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. deals with an appeal under the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. The appellant, Shoeyb Raja, challenged a judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had acquitted the accused respondents of several charges, including an attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case is critical as it explores important legal principles surrounding the framing of charges under Section 307 IPC and the application of Section 34 IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
Background of the Case
The appellant was the Chairman of the District Waqf Board in Seoni, Madhya Pradesh. He was allegedly attacked and beaten by the accused respondents as a result of a dispute between the new and previous Masjid Committees. The complainant sustained injuries serious enough to require medical attention, and an FIR was lodged under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
At a later stage, the accused were taken into custody under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). However, the High Court eventually dismissed the inclusion of Section 307, observing that the injuries inflicted upon the appellant were not of a nature that could suggest an attempt to cause death.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The primary question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the injuries and circumstances in this case warranted framing charges under Section 307 IPC. The appellant contended that the lower courts had erred in dismissing the framing of Section 307 charges. Several arguments were brought forth by the appellant:
Nature of Injuries: It was argued that the injuries inflicted did not rule out the applicability of Section 307 IPC. The medical report pointed to throttling, which could have led to respiratory arrest and, thus, amounted to an attempt on the complainant's life.
Medical Evidence: The appellant contested that the reliance on a medical report to reject Section 307 charges was misplaced since the doctor who authored the report was not examined.
Intent to Kill: The appellant submitted that witness statements under Section 161 CrPC highlighted the respondent’s intent to kill the appellant through acts of pressing his mouth, nose, and throat.
Prior Judgments: Reference was made to the judgment in State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi & Ors. to assert that the Court should not undertake a detailed assessment of material at the stage of framing charges.
The Court's Observations
Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol, who delivered the judgment, scrutinised the nature of the injuries, the role of medical evidence, and the legal principles under Section 307 and Section 34 of the IPC.
Section 307 IPC: The Court reiterated the well-settled legal principles governing Section 307 IPC. According to State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao (2003), three essential ingredients must be present for the application of Section 307:
An attempt to cause death.
The act must be capable of causing death or should be done with the intent to cause death.
The action taken by the accused should be imminently dangerous, and no excuse should justify the risk of death or serious injury.
The Hon'ble Court also cited Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (1961), which held that an offence under Section 307 is constituted even when the act is not the immediate or penultimate act of murder, as long as the intent to commit murder exists.
Section 34 IPC: The Court highlighted that Section 34 IPC requires common intention and a consensus among the accused to commit a criminal act. The case of Chhota Ahirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh established that common intention could be inferred from the conduct of the accused, even if it is developed on the spot without prior deliberation. The Court found that the High Court had erred by over-relying on the nature of the injuries without considering the overall circumstances, particularly the intent behind the actions of the accused. As held in Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand (2004), "to justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted."
Medical Report and Throttling: The Supreme Court paid particular attention to the medical evidence. The doctor's report indicated that while the injuries were superficial, the complainant had sustained bruises around the mouth, nose, and throat, suggesting throttling, which could have led to respiratory arrest. The Court was of the view that dismissing Section 307 charges based solely on the nature of the injuries ignored the intent of the accused. The Court further observed,
“if the doctor who conducted the examination posits the possibility of throttling, then under what circumstances, without rigorous cross-examination, could it be concluded that the injuries sustained were simple?”
Supreme Court's Judgment
The Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had acted improperly in dismissing Section 307 IPC charges without fully appreciating the intent of the accused. The Supreme Court found that, despite the injuries being minor, the accused's actions indicated an intent to cause death, justifying charges under Section 307 IPC.
The Court succinctly summarised its reasoning by stating,
“The extent of the injuries are not relevant, if the intent is present. The minor nature of injuries is not sufficient reason to not frame a charge under Section 307 IPC, as per the law laid down by this Court.”
The judgment was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with framing charges under Section 307 IPC along with the other charges.
Conclusion
The judgment in Shoeyb Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reinforces the principle that the intent behind an act is critical in determining whether charges under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) are justified, regardless of the extent of physical injuries. It highlights that even minor injuries can lead to serious charges if the intent to cause death is evident. This ruling serves as an important reference for legal professionals in understanding how intent and common intention, under Section 34 IPC, influence the framing of charges in criminal cases.
Comments