Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Kervar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19229
1 CRR-2597-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 23rd OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2597 of 2025
MANISH KERVAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Manana - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri S.S Thakur -G.A for the respondent/State.
Reserved on 16.07.2025
Pronounced on 23.07.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 is
preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2025 in
S.C.No.777/2025 by A.S.J, Nagda, district Ujjain whereby charges
under sections 296, 109 r/w section 3(5), 115 (2) r/w section 3(5),
132, 351 (3) of the BNS, 2023 have been framed against the revision
petitioner no.2 Om Prakash Kervar and charges under sections 296,
109, 132, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 have been framed against revision
petitioner no.1 Manish Kervar in a case arising out of first
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 23-07-2025
19:32:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19229
2 CRR-2597-2025
information report registered as crime no.71/2025 registered at
police station Birla Gram, Nagda, Ujjain.
2. The charges have been framed for attempting to murder of
Rakesh Kalyane and Shahzad, who were employed in Nagar Palika,
Nagda and were engaged in the work of cleaning roads and on the
date of incident i.e. 19.02.2025 were also supervising the work of
cleaning roads. They enquired about the garbage that was littered on
the road and due to this they were assaulted by the revision
petitioners and Manish Kervar caused the injuries to Shahzad and
Rakesh Kalyane.
3. This revision petition is preferred on the ground that the
ingredients of section 109 or 132 of the BNS, 2023 are lacking in the
entire prosecution story. There is no material to establish that the so
called injuries sustained by the complainants are dangerous to life.
The intention of committing any offence was totally lacking in the
entire prosecution story. There is nothing to establish intimidation,
insult or annoyance of any person nor there was any disturbance to
the possession of any such person. There is nothing to establish that
petitioners ever conspired to commit any criminal act in furtherance
of common intention. The existence of intention or knowledge has
to be culled out from various circumstances in which an upon whom
the alleged offence have been committed. The petitioners were not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 23-07-2025
19:32:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19229
3 CRR-2597-2025
at all in the possession of any deadly weapon. The medical expert
gave the opinion that the injuries of both the complainants Shahzad
and Rakesh are simple in nature. The allegations are totally baseless
and are without foundation. The complainants are not public
servants.
4. Heard.
5. Govt. Advocate opposed the petition.
6. Perused the record.
7. In Tillu @ Manish Vs. State of M.P. ( Cr. A No.
2768/2021 judgment dated 22-08-2022) co-ordinate Bench of this
Court at Gwalior has discussed the position regarding nature of
injuries in determining the commission of offence under Section 307
of IPC in paragraphs- 58 to 66. Those are being reproduced
hereunder :-
“58. It is well established principle of law that nature
of injuries are not decisive factor to find out as to
whether the accused has committed an offence under
Section 307 of IPC or not?
59. Section 307 of IPC reads as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 23-07-2025
19:32:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19229
4 CRR-2597-2025
307. Attempt to murder.–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 herein before
mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.–When any
person offending under this section is under sentence
of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be
punished with death.
60. From the plain reading of Section 307 of IPC, it
is clear that presence of injury is not sine qua non for
making out an offence under Section 307 of IPC. If any
act is done with an intention or knowledge that, if
assailant by that act causes death, then the assailant would
be guilty of murder, then such act would certainly be
punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
61. Thus, the following two ingredients are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 23-07-2025
19:32:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:192295 CRR-2597-2025
necessary to make out an offence under Section 307 of
IPC :
(a) Knowledge or intention that by his act, if murder
is caused then he would be guilty of murder ;
(b) Does any act towards commission of that offence.
62. The first part of Section 307 of IPC deals with a
situation, where no injury is caused and second part of
Section 307 of IPC deals with a 22 situation where hurt is
caused. “Hurt” is defined in Section 319 of IPC which
reads as under :
319. Hurt.–Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
63. Thus, the nature of injuries is not a decisive
factor to determine as to whether the act of the assailant
would be an act punishable under Section 307 of IPC or
not. In order to gather intention or knowledge, the weapon
used, part of the body on which injury was caused as well
as number of injuries are some of the important aspects.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 23-07-2025
19:32:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19229
6 CRR-2597-2025
64. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P.
Vs. Harjeet Singh reported in (2019) 20 SCC 524 has held
as under :
5.6.1. If a person causes hurt with the intention or
knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract
Section 307.
5.6.2. This Court in R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka,
held that:
“8. … The first blow was on a vital part, that is,
on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on
non vital parts, that does not take away the rigour of
Section 307 IPC. …
9. 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. Although the nature of
injury actually caused may often give considerable
assistance in coming to a finding as to the intentionof the accused, such intention may also be deduced
from other circumstances, and may even, in some
cases, be ascertained without any reference at all toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 23-07-2025
19:32:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:192297 CRR-2597-2025
actual wounds. 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.”
5.6.3. If the assailant acts with the intention or
knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is
caused, then the provisions of Section 307 IPC would be
applicable. There is no requirement for the injury to be on
a “vital part” of the body, merely causing “hurt” is
sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC.
5.6.4. This Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana
(AIR 1971 SC 1033) held that:
“12. For the purpose of conviction under
Section 307IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the
intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by
the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that
the accused had attempted to commit the murder of
the prosecution witness. Whether the accused personSignature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 23-07-2025
19:32:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:192298 CRR-2597-2025
intended to commit murder of another person would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC,
it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing
death should have been caused. Although the nature
of injury actually caused may be of assistance in
coming to a finding as to the intention of the
accused, such intention may also be adduced from
other circumstances. The intention of the accused is
to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature
of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the
time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of
the body where the injury was caused and the nature
of injury and severity of the blows given, etc.”
65. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Kanha reported in (2019) 3 SCC 605 has held as under :
13. The above judgments of this Court lead us
to the conclusion that proof of grievous or life-
threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence
under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 23-07-2025
19:32:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19229
9 CRR-2597-2025
of the accused can be ascertained from the actual
injury, if any, as well as from surrounding
circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the
weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted
can be considered to infer intent.
66. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Saleem reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554 has held as under :
12. To justify a conviction under this section,
it is not essential that bodily injury capable of
causing death should have been inflicted. Although
the nature of injury actually caused may often give
considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to
the intention of the accused, such intention may also
be deduced from other circumstances, and may even,
in some cases, be ascertained without any reference
at all to actual wounds. The section makes a
distinction between an act of the accused and its
result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any
result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but
still there may be cases in which the culprit wouldSignature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 23-07-2025
19:32:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1922910 CRR-2597-2025
beliable under this section. It is not necessary that the
injury actually caused to the victim of the assault
should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to
cause the death of the person assaulted. What the
court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its
result, was done with the intention or knowledge and
under circumstances mentioned in the section.An
attempt in order to be criminal need not be the
penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is
present an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof.
8. Now come to the facts of this case. Both the victims viz.
Rakesh and Shahzad have stated in their statement recorded under
section 180 of the BNS, 2023 that injuries were caused to them with
intention to kill and for that purpose the spade was used as weapon
of offence and part of body selected for assault was head which is
vital organ.
9. When we examine the nature of instrument used as
weapon of offence the description of which is mentioned in
Annexure P/6 as 4 ft. 3 inch long containing a blade of 9 inch long
and 11 inch width made of iron viz. spade and the fact that both the
victims were targeted on the same place and part of body i.e. head
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 23-07-2025
19:32:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19229
11 CRR-2597-2025
and in the left side just below the ear., then the trial court was right
in framing the charges under sections 296, 109 r/w section 3(5), 115
(2) r/w section 3(5), 132, 351 (3) of the BNS, 2023 against the
revision petitioner no.2 Om Prakash Kervar and charges under
sections 296, 109, 132, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 against revision
petitioner no.1 Manish Kervar.
10. Accordingly, in the light of above, this revision petition
being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 23-07-2025
19:32:02
[ad_1]
Source link