सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा: हत्या के प्रयास में गंभीर चोट नहीं, इरादा ही निर्णायक

<p>New Delhi: The<a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court"> Supreme Court</a> has ruled that the presence of a life-threatening or even simple injury is not essential to sustain a charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, what matters is whether the accused acted with the requisite intention or knowledge that the act could cause death.</p> <p>A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran observed that the nature of the injury or the weapon used are only factors to be considered while determining such intent or knowledge. </p> <p>“We are of the opinion that the grievousness of the injuries or the possibility of injury which could have led to death is not a necessary ingredient to attract Section 307 of the IPC,” the court said.</p> <p>The observation came while dismissing a special leave petition filed by Surender Kumar challenging the rejection of his plea to alter the charges against the accused to include Section 307 IPC.</p> <p>The case arose from a dispute over waterlogging caused by the draining of rainwater in Karnal, Haryana. </p> .Capital punishment only if life term option ruled out: Supreme Court.<p>The petitioner, his brother and uncle were allegedly assaulted by a group of accused. </p> <p>An FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 506 IPC. </p> <p>The injured sustained multiple wounds, but a medical board later opined that the injuries, though grievous, did not endanger life.</p> <p>After prosecution witnesses had been examined, an application was moved to alter the charge to Section 307. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal, dismissed it, giving primacy to the medical board’s report. </p> <p>The Sessions Court and the High Court upheld the decision.</p> <p>The Supreme Court noted that the application came at a late stage of the trial and found no foundation for the charge of attempt to murder in the evidence or the circumstances of the case. </p> <p>The first informant had not alleged an intention to kill, and no such case was made out at the stage of cognizance or during the recording of evidence.</p> <p>While affirming that a trial court has the power to alter charges at any stage if the evidence justifies it, the bench held that a belated application without supporting material cannot be entertained. Finding no reason to interfere, the court dismissed the petition.</p>

<p>New Delhi: The<a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court"> Supreme Court</a> has ruled that the presence of a life-threatening or even simple injury is not essential to sustain a charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, what matters is whether the accused acted with the requisite intention or knowledge that the act could cause death.</p> <p>A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran observed that the nature of the injury or the weapon used are only factors to be considered while determining such intent or knowledge. </p> <p>“We are of the opinion that the grievousness of the injuries or the possibility of injury which could have led to death is not a necessary ingredient to attract Section 307 of the IPC,” the court said.</p> <p>The observation came while dismissing a special leave petition filed by Surender Kumar challenging the rejection of his plea to alter the charges against the accused to include Section 307 IPC.</p> <p>The case arose from a dispute over waterlogging caused by the draining of rainwater in Karnal, Haryana. </p> .Capital punishment only if life term option ruled out: Supreme Court.<p>The petitioner, his brother and uncle were allegedly assaulted by a group of accused. </p> <p>An FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 506 IPC. </p> <p>The injured sustained multiple wounds, but a medical board later opined that the injuries, though grievous, did not endanger life.</p> <p>After prosecution witnesses had been examined, an application was moved to alter the charge to Section 307. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal, dismissed it, giving primacy to the medical board’s report. </p> <p>The Sessions Court and the High Court upheld the decision.</p> <p>The Supreme Court noted that the application came at a late stage of the trial and found no foundation for the charge of attempt to murder in the evidence or the circumstances of the case. </p> <p>The first informant had not alleged an intention to kill, and no such case was made out at the stage of cognizance or during the recording of evidence.</p> <p>While affirming that a trial court has the power to alter charges at any stage if the evidence justifies it, the bench held that a belated application without supporting material cannot be entertained. Finding no reason to interfere, the court dismissed the petition.</p>

Powered by Nyaya 247 News