ANJANI KUMAR CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

                         [2014] 5 S.C.R. 562


A                  ANJANI KUMAR CHAUDHARY
                                   v.
                 STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 926 of 2014)
                           APRIL 23, 2014
B
     [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

c        ss.2271228- Discharge/framing of charges - FIR lodged
    for offences punishable u/ss 307, 386 /PC and other offences
    - Application ulss 2271228 CrPC - Addi. Sessions Judge
    holding that no charge could be framed ulss 307 and 386 /PC
    and transferred the case to Chief Judicial Magistrate .J Order
    affirmed by High Court - Held: FIR and statements of
0
    witnesses prima facie indicate that ingredients of s.307 /PC
    are made out - Order of Court of Session as affirmed by High
    Court, set aside - Penal Code, 1860, ss.307, 386, 147, 148,
    504, 3"84, 324 and 341.                         ·

E       Penal Code, 1860:

       s.307 - Ingredients - FIR - ApplicationJor discharge u/
  s 307 /PC - Held: If anybody does any act with intention or
  knowledge that by his act he might cause death, and hurl is
F caused, that is sufficient to attract s. 307 - Further, in order
  to attract s. 307, the injury need not be on vital part of the body
  - In the instant case, statements, weapons' used and taking
  into account the nature of injuries and the open declaration
  by accused that the appellant would be killed, would indicate
G that, prima facie, ingredients of s. 307 /PC are made out -
  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.2271228.

        An FIR was registered for offences punishable ulss
    147, 148, 504, 323, 384, 324, 307 and 341 IPC against 7

H                                 562
 ANJANI KUMAR CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR 563


named persons, i.e. respondents nos. 2 and 10 to 15 and         A
other unknown _persons on the allegations that while the
appellant, a. practicing advocate, was sitting in the house
of one of his acquaintance, the accused came there and
demanded Rs. 1000 fr.om him as Rangdari for Holi. The
appellant gave Rs. 200 (lnd ' protested the way the money       B
was demanded. A~ersome time respondent no. 2 along
with about 12 other persons reached there with lathi, iron
rod, fursha, talwar etc. and abused the appellant, dragged
him out of the house and brutally assaulted him with the
weapons and left the place. The appellant was admitted          c
to the hospital and his statement was recorded.
Respondent no. 2 filed an application u/ss 227/228 CrPC
before the Additional Session Judge stating that no
offence u/ss 307 or 386 IPC was made out and prayed for
the discharge and that the case be returned to the Chief        D
Judicial Magistrate. The Court of Session held that no
charge could be framed for offences punishable u/ss 307
and 386 IPC and transferred the case to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate for trial. The revision petitio.n filed by the
appellant was dismissed by the High Court.                      E
                                                                    I
    Allowing the aP,peal the Court

     HELD:1.1. In Mohan's case*, this Court has taken the
view that if anybody does any act with intention or
knowledge that by his act he might cause death, and hurt        F
is caused, that is sufficient to attract s. 307 IPC. Further,
this Court has also taken the view that, in order to attract
s. 307 IPC, the injury need not be on the vital part of the
body. [para 10) [567-H; 568-A)
                                                                G
    *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan and Others 2013 (7)
SCR 802 .= (2013) 14 sec 116 - relied on
    1.2. In the instant case, the statements given by
various witnesses support the case in the FIR.
Statements of the witnesses are also on the same lines.         H
    564       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 5 S.C.R.

A What is discernible from the statements is that 1st
    accused and others, while committing the alleged
    offence, had exhorted that they would kill the appellant
    if the money was not paid. Open announcement by the
    accused and others that the appellant would not be alive
B to practice in the High Court, would prima facie indicate
   that the intention of the accused was, what he had
   spoken, followed by the infliction of injuries. Further,·
   when several persons attack an unarmed person with
   deadly weapons, it is reasonable to presume that they
c had knowledge or intenlion that such an attack would
   result in cWath. In the instant case, the statements, the
   weapons used, i.e. Lathi, rod, Farsa, Talwar etc. and
   taking into account the nature of injuries and the open
   declaration by the accused that the appellant would be
D killed, would indicate that prima facie the ingredients of
   s. 307 IPC are made out. In the circumstances, the
   judgment of the Court of Session as affirmed by the High
   Court is set aside. [para 11 16, a,nd 18] [571-H; 572-A-B, j
  ·E, G]                                               .

E         Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2004 (2)
    SCR 861 = (2004) 9 sec 31 - relied on
                         Case Law Reference:
          2013 (7) SCR 802       relied on            para 7
F
          2004 (2) SCR 861       relied on            para 16
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 926 of 2014.

G       From the Judgment & Order dated 23.02.2012 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Revision No. 676 of
    2008.

     Santosh Kumar, V. Sushant Gupta, (for Dr. .Kailash
H Chand) for the Appellant.
  ANJANI KUMAR CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR                     565


    A.K. Yadav, B.B. Pradhan, Kameshwar Singh (for K,V.               A
Mohan), Rudreshwar Singh (for Samir Ali Khan) for the
Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ..1. Leave granted.                       B

     2. Appellant, a practicing advocate in the Patna High Court,
had gone to his village at-Nehra, in the district of Qarbhanga
for celebrating Holi festival. On 15.3.2006 at about 10.00 PM
while he was sitting in the house of one Ranjit Chaudhary along       c
with Gautam Chaudhary and others, few persons by name
Ramesh Sahni, Dinesh Sahni and others, came there and
demanded Rs.1,000/- as Rangdari for meeting Holi expenses:-
Appellant gave Rs.200/- but wanted the money to be returned
which was not to the likings of the persons who came there.           D
Twenty minutes thereafter, 2nd Respondent (1st accused) Sunil
Sahni along with about 12 other persons came with Lathi, iron
rod, Fursha, Talbar etc. a11d abused the appellant and dragged
him out. of the house and brutally assaulted him with the
weapons and left the place after inflicting several injuries on the   E
appellant.

     · 3. The appellant was later admitted to the hospital at Sakri
and his statement was recorded and a criminal case No. 46
of 2006 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 504, 323,
384, 324, 307 and 341 IPC against seven named persons and             F
10-15 unknown persons, vide FIR ?ated 16.3.2006. The police
started investigation and, after completing the investigation, the
police submitteJ its final report under Section 173 Cr.P .C. and
the accused persons were sent for trial.
                                                                      G
    4. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences on
9.10.2007 and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

    5. 1st accused then filed an application for quashing the
charge-sheet vide Criminal Misc. No. 13987 of 2007 before
                                                                      H
    566     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A the Patna High Court. Later, that application was withdrawn
  seeking liberty to agitate the grievances before the trial Court
  at the time of framing of charges, which was allowed by the
  High Court by its order dated 5.11.2007. 1st accused also filed
  an application under Sections 227/228 CrPC on 15.1.2008
8 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga stating that
  no offence under Sections 307 or 386 IPC was made out and
  hence prayed for the discharge and that the case be returned
   to the Chief Judicial Magistrate after framing charge under rest
  of the provisions.

c      6. The Sessions Court, after hearing both the parties,
  came 1o the conclusion that no charge can be framed under
  Sections 307, 386 IPC against the accused, except the rest of
  the charges levelled against him. The Sessions Court vide its
  order dated 27.5.2008 transferred the case to the Chief Judicial
D Magistrate for trial. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant
  herein· preferred Criminal Revision No. 676 of 2008 before the
  High Court, which was dismissed cin 23.2.2012, against which
  this appeal by special leave has been preferred.

E      7. Shri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
  appellant, subm'itted that the Courts below were not justified in
  holding that no offence under Sections 307/308 IPC was made
  out. Learned counsel pointed out that the Courts below have
  failed to appreciate the statement of the witnesses at
  paragraphs 5, 6, 17 and 19 of the case diary, which would
F clearly indicate that the 1st accused along with other accused
  persons inflicted blows by sharp· weapons and had thus acted
  with the intention and knowledge that the same would cause
  the death of the appellant. Learned counsel also pointed out
  that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that when about
G 10-15 persons attacked an unarmed person with sharp
  weapons, one has to presume that the intention was to cause
  death and the injuries sustained by the appellant would also
  indicate that his life was in danger. Learned counsel submitted
  that, in order to sustain a charge under Section ~07 IPC, it is
H
 ANJANI KUMAR CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR                      567
          [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should       A
have been inflicted and what the Court has to consider is
whether the act, irrespective of the result, was done with the
intention or knowledge that death would be caused. In support
of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan             B
and Others (2013) 14 SCC 116.

      8. Shri A. K. Yadav, learned counsel appearirig for the 2nd
respondent (1st accused), submitted that there is no reason to ·
interfere with the order of the Sessions Judge, which is affirmed C
by the High Court. Learned counsel pointed out that the
complainant has not brought on record sufficient materials for
framing charge under Section 307 IPC against the 1st accused
and neither the informant, nor any of the witnesses have stated
that the 1st accused had assaulted the appellant with an
intention or knowledge to commit the murder, or had he given D
any blow on his person.

     9. The Sessions Court as jVell as the High Court, after
perusing the statement of the witnesses and the first information
report, took the view that what emerges from the statement of          E
witnesses was that, initially, the intention was to teach i:l lesson
for non-payment of Rs.1000/- and whatever followed by way of
subsequent action, could not be held to be an act done with
the intention to kill. Further, the Courts below have taken the
view that there could not be an intention to kill in the background    F
of the incident, since the appellant did not pay the amount
demanded on the occasion 'Of Hali festival.

     10. We can, at this stage, proceed only on the basis of
the statement recorded in the FIR as well as on the statements
of t~e witnesses recorded in the case diary to find out whether        G
they satisfy the ingredients of Section 307 IPC. The scope of
Section 307 IPC has elaborately been dealt with by this Court
in Mohan's case (supra), wherein this Court has taken the view
that if anybody does any act with intention or knowledge that
                                                                       H
    568       SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A by his act he might cause death and hurt is caused, that is
  sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC. Further, this Court has also
  taken the view that, in order to attract Section 307 IPC, the injury
  need not be on the vital part of the body.

        11. We .notice from the FIR and the statements given by
8
  various witnesses that, on the eve of Holi, the appellant was
  sitting at the residence of one Ranjit Chaudhary and, at that
  time, few persons came and demanded Rs.1,000/- for meeting
  Holi expenses but the appellant gave onlv Rs.200/-. Following
  that, about 12 persons, including the 1st accused, came there
C armed with Lathi, iron rod, Farsa, Talwar etc. and attacked the
  appellant and dragged him out of the house and gave blows
  and he fell down and sustained injuries. The relevant portion of
  the FIR reads as follows:

D                 "Along with 10 to 12 unknown persons after having
          armed with Lathi, Iron road, fursha and Talbar (both Sharp·
          cutting weapon) came there and soon after arrival they told
          Advocate SHALA we &hall force you to leave your
          profession of Advocacy and they dragged me out from
E         house and brutally assaulted with Lathi, rod and fursha and'
               \,                                           '
          gave· farsa blow over my head but I could be saved anyhow
          and got injury over right ear and over backside of throat
          and over the left hand as result of which I sustained injury
          on my person and fell down. Even then they continued-
F         assaulting me and threatened you did not pay today
          Rs.1.000/- as demanded by us you will be killed. Sunil
          Sahni told neither you will be alive nor will go to High Court
          for practicing there. Sometime after some villagers and my
          associates namely Anil Choudhary s/o Late Narendra
          Choudhary, Baiju Kant Choudhary~/o Hira Kant
G
          Choudhary, Mithilesh Choudhary s/o Salish Kumar
          Choudhary and several others came there and saved me.
          They surrounded my house. Th.ereafter, my associates got
          me admitted at Sakari _Hospital."
H                                                  (emphasis added)
 ANJANI KUMAR GHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR 569
          [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    12. The nature of injuries noticed on the body of the          A
appellant are as follows:
     "1.   Incised wound over Rt temporal region of scalp just
           at the base of Rt ear (1-1 /2" x %" x Yi")
     2.    Incised wound over Rt side of occipital region of       B
           scalp (1-1/4"x %" x 1/6")
     3.    Incised wound over Lt side of occipital region of
           scalp (2" x %" x Yi")
     4.    Pain, swelling, scattered abrasions and scattered       C
           lacerated wounds over Lt. forearm on dorsal side
           (4" x 2").
    Nature of injury: lnj. No. (1 ), (2) & (3) simple in nature
    caused by sharp cutting weapon ing N(4) simple in nature
    caused by hard blunt substance.                                o
    Age of injury: Within 24 ms
    M.I. An old healed wound scar mark over upper part of
    chest is middle."
     13. The recorded statement of Ranjeet Choudhary reads         E
as follows:
    "......... Ramesh Sahni and Dinesh Sahni came there and
    asked the interment that Sunil Sahni has demanded
    Rs.1000/- (one thousand) as Rangdari for meeting Holi
    expenses Wakil Saheb (the informant) after making them         F
    convinced gave Rs.200/- and got them return but while
    returning they started whispering Wakil Saheb this is not
    proper way you ought to have been given entire amount
    and soon after twenty minutes ac·cused Sunil Sahni along
    with Ramesh Sahni, Dinesh Sahni, Deepak Sahni, Mohan           G
    Sahni, Buchchu Sahni after having variously armed with
    Farsa, rod, Talwar and lathi came there and just after their
    arrival Sunil Sahni ordered his associates "AJ WAKILWA
    KO WAKALAT CHHURADO" saying this Sun ii Sahni gave
    Farsa blow over the head of the interment with killing         H
    570        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A         intention which inflicted near the rig hear of the informant
          and Mohan Sahni with intent to kill him gave Talwar blow
          over the throat of the informant but the informant could be
          saved and how and proceeded ahead but got injury over
          throat and started bleeding. Deepak Sahni having armed
B         iron road assaulted the informant with rod which inflicted
          injury over the left wrist 'of the informant and other accused
          person namely, Ramesh Sahni, Dinesh Sahni, Buchi Sahni
          assaulted with lathi, feets and slaps other accused person
          not named in FIR, namely, Asharni Sahni, Lakshmi Sahni,
c         Santosh Sahni insulted andabused the informant with
          intent to provoke breach of the peace and in the mean time
          persons residing in the vicinity came there and seeing
          them accused persons fled away."
      14. The relative portion of the statement of FIR witness
D Ranjit Chaudhary reads as follows:
          "....... Ramesh Sahni and Dinesh Sahni came there and
          asked the interment that Sunil Sahni has demanded
          Rs1000/- (one thousand) as Rangdari for meeting Holi
          expenses. Wakil Saheb (the informant) after making them
E         convinced gave Rs.200/- and got them return but while
          returning they started whispering Wakil Saheb this is not
          proper way you ought to have been given entire amount
          and soon after twenty minutes accused Sunil Sahni along
          with Ramesh Sahni, Dinesh Sahni, Deepak Sahni, Mohan:
F         Sahni, Buchchu Sahni after having variously armed with .
          Farsa,rod, Talwar and lathi came there and just after their
          arrival Sunil Sahni ordered his associates "AJ AAKILWA
          KO WAKALA T CHHURADO" saying this Sun ii Sahni gave
          Farsa blow overthe head of the interment with killing
G         intention which inflicted near the rig hear of the informant
          and Mohan Sahni with intent to kill him gave Talwar blow
          over the throat of the informant but the informant could be
          saved any how and proceeded ahead but got injury over
          throat and started bleeding. Deepak Sahni having armed
H         with iron rod assaulted the informant with rod which
 ANJANI KUMAR CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR 571
          [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    inflicted injury over the left wrist of the informant and .other   A
    accused person namely Ramesh Sahni, Dinesh Sahni,
    Buchi Sahni assaulted with lathi, feets and slaps other
    accused person not named in F.l.R. namely Asharni Sahni,
    Lakshmi Sahni, Santosh Sahni insulted and abused the
    informant with intent to provoke breach of the peace and           B
    in the mean time persons residing in the vicinity came
    there and seeing them accused persons fled away."
    15. The relative portion of the statement of FIR witness
Gautam Chaudhary reads as follows:
    "....... Soon after, Sun ii Sahni along with Ramesh Sahni,
                                                                       c
    Deepak Sahni, Mohan Sahni and Bachu Sahni after
    variously armed with farsa, Talwar, Iron road, Lathi, paipa
    (small size of Lathi) came there and Sunil Sahni soon after
    his arrival told "AAJ WAKILVA KO SABAK SIKHA DENA                  D
    HAI" (today we have to teach lesson to the Advocate)
    "SHALA PAISA NAHi DIVA HAI" stating this he having
    armed farsa, gave farsa blow intent to kill him over his
    head to which the informant wanted to save him but the
    saidfarsa blow inflicted near his right ear and Mohan Sahni
    gave Talwar blow over the throat of the informant which            E
    resulted injury over his throat and the informant fell down
    and even then Deepak Sahni having Iron road in his hand
    assaulted the informant with Iron rod which inflicted injury
    over the left wrist of the informant and other accused
    persons Ramesh Sahni, Dinesh Sahni and Shunbhu Sahni               F
    assaulted with Lathi, feet and slaps in the mean time.
    Asbari Sahni, Laxmi Sahni, Santosh Sahni, Jagdish Sahni
    and four to five unknown persons came there and abused
    the informant with intent to provoke breach of the peace
    and they stated to teach lessons to the Advocate who is            G
    Partaking much."
    16. Statements of the witnesses Baiju and Manoj
Chaudhary are also in the same lines. What is discernible from
the above statements is that 1st accused and others, while
                                                                       H
    572      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 5 S.C.R.


A committing the alleged offence, had exhorted that they would
  kill the appellant if the money was not paid. Open announcement
  by the accused and others that the appellant would not be alive
  to practice in the High Court, would prima facie indicate that
  the. intention of the accused was, what he had spoken, followed
B by the infliction of injuries. Further, when several persons attack
  an Ul)armed person with deadly weapons, it is reasonable to
  presume that they had knowledge or intention that such an
  attack would result in death. In the instant case, as per the
  statements, the weapons used were Lathi, rod, Farsa, Talwar
c etc. and when we look at the nature of injuries, it is clear that
  the injuries were caused by using sharp cutting weapons and
  also with hard blunt substance. Injuries were inflicted on the right
  temporal region of scalp at the base of the right ear, right side
  of occipital region of scalp, left side of occipital region of scalp
0 etc. Open declaration by the accused that a person would be
  killed, indicates his intention and, a~ held by this Court in
  Vasant Vithu Jadh9v v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 9 SCC
  31, the question as to whether there was intention to kill or
  knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and
E would depend on the facts of a given case which has to be
  attributed on evidence by the trial court. Above facts would
  indicate that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are made out.
       17. We make. it clear that this is only a prima facie view
  to decide as to whether the FIR and the statements of
F witnesses contain averments so as to charge-sheet the
  accused under Section 307 IPC and ultimately it is for the trial
  court to decide whether the offence under Section 307 IPC has
  been made during trial, which ought to be ultimately decided
  on the basis of evidence tendered before the criminal Court.
G        18. In such circumstances of the case, we are inclined to
    allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Sessions
    Court, which was affirmed by the High Court. Ordered
    accordingly.
H · Rajendra Prasad                                    Appeal allowed.