The Supreme Court has set aside the framing of charges under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC in a 2007 Indore land dispute case, holding that the material on record did not justify invoking attempt to murder charges nearly 17 years after the incident.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order which had affirmed the framing of charges under Section 307/149 IPC, and directed that the matter be remitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate for fresh consideration of charges in accordance with law.
The case arose from cross-FIRs lodged in October 2007 over a land dispute in Indore. While the complainant alleged assault, trespass, and destruction of harvested crops, the original chargesheet filed in 2014 did not include attempt to murder charges. It was only after a complainant’s application moved years later that the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, leading to framing of charges under Section 307/149 IPC.
Examining the record, the Supreme Court noted that neither the FIR nor the complainant’s first statement mentioned any gunshot being fired. The allegation surfaced only in a subsequent statement recorded 12 days later, which the Court found to be a material improvement. The Bench also flagged inconsistencies surrounding the alleged seizure of the firearm, noting that the recovery memo reflected a time preceding registration of the FIR itself.
The Court further observed that the statement of a key witness who allegedly pulled the complainant away when the gunshot was said to have been fired had not been recorded during investigation. In these circumstances, the Bench held that the serious charge under Section 307 IPC could not have been added without proper scrutiny of the material.
Reiterating the limited role of a Magistrate at the committal stage, the Court held that the order committing the matter on the complainant’s application, without due appreciation of the record, was unsustainable. However, it clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of Section 307/149 IPC and would not affect the merits of the trial on the remaining charges.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Abhinav Malhotra, Adv.; Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR; Ms. Pavani Verma, Adv.; Mr. Yash Dutt, Adv.; Mr. Kartikeya Dang, Adv.; Mr. Lokesh Malik, Adv.; Ms. Atika Chaturvedi, Adv.; Mr. Chandrashekhar, Adv
For Respondent(s): Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Adv. ; Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Tripathi, Adv.; Mr. Aviral Parashar, Adv.; Ms. Mahima Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Niraj Sharma, AOR;
Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Sr. A.A.G.; Mr. Sarthak Raizada, Adv.; Mr. Shantanu Krishna, Adv.; Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR;
Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Adv.; Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Shadab Anwar, Adv.; Mr. Zartab Anwar, Adv.; Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.; Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.; Mr. Shravan Bagora, Adv.
