Team  SoOLEGAL

Injury to head doesn’t automatically mean attempt to murder under IPC, rules P&H High Court

Team SoOLEGAL 29 Jun 2020 3:15pm

Injury to head doesn’t automatically mean attempt to murder under IPC, rules P&H High Court

On June 29, Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected a petition which challenged the charges framed in a case by trial court by ruling that injury only caused to the head is not sufficient enough to charge an accused with attempt to murder. In that case a person from Kurukshetra got serious injury in his head with a spade.

Justice Manoj Bajaj held that according to Section 307 of Indian Penal Code it states that it is very much important of having an intention or knowledge to commit a particular crime under this section. An intention must be there and it should not be compared with the recklessness of the accused person. Intention or knowledge is the very important ingredient of this section.

The Court was also of the view that there are many criminal cases where injury is not occurred to the victim but still the accused person will fall under this section.

In January 2017, the accused,the victim's nephews, were charged by the court under Section 325, IPC (voluntarily causing serious injury) for hitting the victim with a spade on his head. The battle had taken place because of a land dispute among members of the family. The claimant contacted the HC and requested that the complaint under Section , IPC is made out, arguing the injury had been inflicted on a critical part of the body and remaining in hospital for 18 days.

The High Court ruled that the instrument which was used for injuring the head is a spade or kassi and that instrument is very much capable of causing death and thus the Court modified the charge and ordered “Thus, considering the nature of the weapon used while causing grievous hurt, a prima-facie case for commission of an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC [voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means] would be made out and respondent Nos.2 and 3 deserve to be charged for the said offence, instead of Section 325 IPC.



Tagged: IPC   Punjab and Haryana High Court   Kurukshetra   Justice Manoj Bajaj   Section 307   criminal cases   High Court  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 3 NO 0
Featured Members view all

New Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.