Patna High Court
BANARSI MAHTOversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The High Court held that no offence under Section 307 IPC was made out as the requisite intention to murder was absent.
Summary
The petitioner, an informant, alleged that the accused assaulted him and his family with iron rods and other weapons during a land dispute, causing fractures to his left hand and shoulder. He sought to set aside the trial court's order that discharged the accused of the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, arguing that the injuries were grievous and indicated an intention to murder. The State contended that the injuries were to non‑vital parts of the body and that there was no intention to kill, so Section 307 was not made out. The High Court examined the ingredients of Section 307, emphasizing the necessity of a specific intent to commit murder, and found no such intent in the facts. It held that the trial court correctly applied Section 227 of the CrPC and rightly discharged the accused of the attempt‑to‑murder charge. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder).
- Whether the trial court erred in exercising power under Section 227 CrPC to discharge the accused of the Section 307 charge.
- Whether the injuries sustained by the petitioner were sufficient to infer an intention to kill.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 337, 34, 341, 504
Subjects
- attempt to murder
- Section 307 IPC
- intention to kill
- land dispute
- criminal revision
- Section 227 CrPC
- grievous injury
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.748 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2022 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Banarsi Mahto Son of Late Inarmmal Mahto @ Inarman Mahto Resident of
Village- Chhitrauli, Police Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shambhu Prasad Son of Pritam Mahto Resident of Village- Chhitrauli,
Police Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
3. Rakesh Kumar Son of Ram Pukar Prasad Resident of Village- Chhitrauli,
Police Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
4. Lallan Kumar Son of Ram Pukar Prasad Resident of Village- Chhitrauli,
Police Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
5. Yogendra Mahto Son of Late Hoti Mahto Resident of Village- Chhitrauli,
Police Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
6. Mahendra Mahto Son of Late Hoti Mahto Resident of Village- Chhitrauli,
Police Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
7. Binod Prasad Son of Yogandra Mahto Resident of Village- Chhitrauli, Police
Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
8. Sanjay Kumar, son of Shambhu Prasad Resident of Village- Chhitrauli,
Police Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
9. Raj Kumar Son of Shambhu Prasad Resident of Village- Chhitrauli, Police
Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
10. Reena Devi Wife of Shambhu Prasad Resident of Village- Chhitrauli, Police
Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
11. Kunti Devi Wife of Binod Prasad Resident of Village- Chhitrauli, Police
Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
12. Kishmati Devi Wife of Ram Kumar Prasad Resident of Village- Chhitrauli,
Police Station- Jharokhar, District- East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd., APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 18-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present revision petition has been filed for
setting aside the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2023(3) dt.18-03-2026
2/8
A.D.J.-XII, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No.
538/2023 arising out of Ghorasahan (Jharokhar) P.S. Case
No.199/2022 punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 504,
379, 307, 324/34 by which the concerned court while exercising
power under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has discharged the accused
persons/opposite parties from the charge under Section 307
I.P.C. and remanded the case before the court of learned
A.C.J.M.-III, Sikarahana at Dhaka to try the accused persons
under remaining offences.
3. As per prosecution case, the fardbeyan of the
informant was recorded in S.K.M,C.H., Muzaffarpur by
Ahiyapur Police Station and it has been mentioned that on
account of land dispute the accused persons came at the door of
the informant with arms and abused the informant. When the
protest was made by the informant, accused/Sambhu Prasad
assaulted with iron rod on the head and the victim/informant
sustained serious injury. On raising alarm, the wife of the
informant Phuleshwari Devi and his son Ravi Ranjan Kumar
came to protest, then, all the accused persons assaulted with
danda, iron rod, fists and slaps. It is further alleged that
accused/Rakesh Kumar pressed the neck of the informant’s
son/Ravi Ranjan Kumar. Victim/Ravi Ranjan Kumar and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2023(3) dt.18-03-2026
3/8
Phuleshwari Devi were treated in PHC, Ghorashahan and the
informant was also referred to S.K.M.C.H. Muzaffarpur. It is
further alleged that gold chain of the informant’s wife was also
snatched by the accused Reena Devi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is the informant of this case. He further submits
that the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet against all the accused
persons for the offence under Sections 337, 341, 323, 307, 324,
504 and 34 of the I.P.C. and learned A.C.J.M.-III, Sikarahna
took cognizance for all the offences, including Section 307
I.P.C. and the case was committed to Court of Sessions but on
07.07.2023 a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was filed by the
accused persons for discharge but the concerned court has
illegally come to the conclusion that no offence under Section
307 is made out and by virtue of the order dated 15.09.2023
remanded back the case record to the court of learned A.C.J.M.-
III, Sikarahna at Dhaka to try the remaining offences. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant/
victim was brutally assaulted by the accused persons with the
iron rod on the vital part of the body and the
informant/petitioner sustained two grievous injuries:-
(i) One is fracture of left hand
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2023(3) dt.18-03-2026
4/8
(ii) another is fracture of left shoulder joint and the
said injuries are evident from the injury report at Annexure-P/2.
He further submits that Ravi Ranjan Kumar and Phuleshwari
Devi also sustained injuries. He further submits that while
passing the order dated 15.09.2023, the concerned Court has not
taken into account the material available on record and the
concerned court has not considered that Section 307 I.P.C. is
made out in the light of aforesaid two injuries and the facts and
circumstances of the case. From the above fact, it is clear that
offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out, but the court has
not taken into account the allegation made in the FIR and
jumped to the conclusion that no offence is made out under
Section 307 I.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
injury report (Annexure-P/2) as well as final report (page-17)
clearly denotes that all the injuries are on the non-vital part of
the body and it is beyond the imagination that these injuries do
not reflect that there was intention on the part of accused
persons to kill either the informant or any other person and the
concerned court, while deciding the petition under Section 227
Cr.P.C., has taken into account the number of injuries, nature of
injuries and the place of injuries under Section 307 I.P.C. In the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2023(3) dt.18-03-2026
5/8
light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the prosecution
story, the very version of prosecution story relates with the land
dispute and the initial version of prosecution story begins with
issue of land. The facts as asserted in FIR is that on account of
land dispute, accused side came to the gate of the informant and
in the cases of land dispute, facts are generally exaggerated to
make the offence graver. There was no repetition of below on
the vital part of the body and the injuries are on the non-vital
part of the body which are grievous in nature and other injuries
are simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance. The trial
court has discussed the sound reasoning and taken into account
all the material available on record while deciding the petition
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and it has been explained that an
offence under Section 307 I.P.C is not made out against the
accused in the facts and circumstances of the present case. For
the purpose of interfering in the revision petition, it is required
to be examined whether any illegality, irregularity and
impropriety was committed by the concerned court while
deciding the petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. There was
nothing on record to entail that any illegality, irregularity and
impropriety was committed while deciding the petition under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. It has been further submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2023(3) dt.18-03-2026
6/8
concerned court while dismissing the petition under Section 227
Cr.P.C. has discussed all the material available on record and
there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the
concerned court and no illegality, irregularity and impropriety
was committed by the concerned court while deciding the
petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
6. To constitute an offence under Section 307 of the
IPC, the following ingredients of the offence must be present;
(a. An intention or knowledge
relating to commission of murder and
(b. Doing of an act towards it.
7. Thus, the intention or knowledge is the gist to
constitute an offence of attempt to murder. In absence of
intention or knowledge, which is a necessary ingredient of
Section 307 I.P.C., there can be no offence of attempt to murder.
8. In the present case, there is admitted land
dispute between the parties and no inference can be drawn that
there was any intention on the part of the accused to commit the
murder of the informant/petitioner and his family members. The
injuries sustained by the informant/petitioner was not on the
vital part of the body and it has also come to fore that either
individually or collectively they have no intention to cause any
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2023(3) dt.18-03-2026
7/8
injury which is dangerous to the life. After discussing all the
material available on record, it is crystal clear that intention of
the accused was not to commit the murder of the
informant/petitioner.
9. After hearing the parties concerned and going
through the material available on record, it is crystal clear that
the concerned court has discussed all the material available on
record and has given the sound reasoning and it has been
explained that under the facts and circumstances of the present
case, no offence is made out under Section 307 I.P.C. The
reason recorded by the trial court is that all the injuries are on
non-vital part of the body and from the perusal of the FIR, it is
crystal clear that the dispute arose on account of land and it
cannot be denied that in cases of land dispute facts are generally
exaggerated to make the offence graver. The injuries sustained
by Ravi Ranjan Kumar and Phuleshwari Devi are simple in
nature and the injury report of the informant indicates that the
injuries of the informant are not on the vital of the body. There
is nothing on record which entails that there was repeated blow
on the vital part of the body and, in the present case, there is
admitted land dispute between the parties and no inferences can
be drawn that there was any intention on the part of accused to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.748 of 2023(3) dt.18-03-2026
8/8
commit the murder of the informant and his family members.
Here the trial court has explained and recorded the finding as to
why Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out.
10. In view of the above, the contention of learned
counsel for the State is quite tenable and sustainable that the
concerned court while dismissing the petition under Section 227
Cr.P.C. has discussed all the material available on record and
there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the
concerned court.
11. In the light aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the of the considered opinion that the order
passed by the concerned court is justified and legal and no
illegality, irregularity and impropriety is found in the order of
the concerned court. Hence, there is nothing on record to differ
from the finding of the concerned court.
12. Accordingly, the present revision petition
stands dismissed, being devoid of merit.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
amitkumar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.