Patna High Court
Mangesh Kushwaha @ Ganesh KushwahaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The High Court held that the material on record was sufficient to presume the requisite intention, and therefore the order rejecting the charge under Section 307 IPC was lawful.
Summary
Mangesh Kushwaha filed a revision petition challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting his application under Section 228 of the CrPC for framing a charge under Section 307 of the IPC. The petitioner argued that intention to cause death must be proved and that the trial court had mechanically presumed intent from injuries without proper analysis of medical reports and witness statements. The High Court noted that the FIR alleged the petitioner struck the informant with an iron rod on vital parts, which creates a presumption of knowledge that such blows could be fatal. It held that at the charge‑framing stage, material sufficient to presume intent is enough and the trial court's order was not illegal or improper. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether the material on record is sufficient to frame a charge under Section 307 IPC despite the alleged lack of explicit proof of intention.
- Whether the trial court erred in its application of Section 228 CrPC and the principles laid down in Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 228
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307
Subjects
- charge framing
- intention
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 228 CrPC
- revision jurisdiction
- delay condonation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1282 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-397 Year-2021 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Mangesh Kushwaha @ Ganesh Kushwaha S/O Raj Kishore Kushwaha
Resident of Village- Dumraona, P.S. -Kateya, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Jagriti Rani, Adv.
Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-02-2026 I.A. No. 01 of 2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
02. It appears there is delay of seventy days in filing
the present revision petition. I.A. No. 01 of 2025 has been filed
for condonation of delay of seventy days in filing the present
revision petition.
03. For the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory
application, delay in filing the present petition is condoned.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is allowed.
Cr. Revision No. 1282 of 2025
04. The instant revision petition has been filed against
the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-XIV, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No. 393 of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1282 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
2024 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Court
rejected the petitioner’s application filed under Section 228 of
the CrPC directing framing of charge under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is bad in the eyes of law as well as on facts. The
intention of the assault or knowledge that assault was going to
cause death is sine qua non for framing of charges under Section
307 of the IPC. Learned counsel further submits that in the case
of Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar in AIR 1965 SC 843, the
Hon’ble Supreme court held that intention must be proved and it
ought not to be inferred casually.
06. Learned counsel further submits the impugned
order is passed in a mechanical manner and the learned trial
court failed to analyze the medical report, witness statements or
circumstances of occurrence and issued a cryptic order thereby
causing miscarriage of justice. Learned trial court wrongly
presumed that the injury on vital part is sufficient for framing of
charges under Section 307 of the IPC.
07. Perused the record.
08. From perusal of record, especially of FIR, I find
that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1282 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
struck the informant at three places with iron rod with intention
of causing his death. The perusal of impugned order shows
some injuries were inflicted on the head and other vital parts of
the body of the informant. If the blows are given on vital parts
of the body, there is presumption that the person giving this
blow is having knowledge that such blow could be fatal and
could endanger the life. Moreover at the stage of framing of
charges, it is sufficient, if the material brought on record shows
such knowledge or intention to charge a person under Section
307 of the IPC. The quality of evidence is immaterial at the time
of framing of charge. It is sufficient if there is material strong
enough to presume that the accused has committed an offence
for which he should be charged under Section 307 of the IPC.
Other aspects of the matter could be dealt with by the learned
trial court during the trial. There could be no quarrel with the
proposition that intention must be proved and not inferred
casually. However, if there is material sufficient for framing
charge under Section 307 of the IPC, the Court would normally
proceed for framing of charge under the said provision.
09. Moreover in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court
is not supposed to reappreciate the facts and take a view
different from the learned trial court unless there is manifest
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1282 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. But the same is
not the situation here and I do not find any such illegality or
impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order.
10. I find no merit in the present revision petition and
hence the same is dismissed.
11. The learned trial court is directed to proceed in the
matter expeditiously.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
U T
Checking your session…