The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that at the charge framing stage, courts must only examine whether a prima facie case exists, without conducting a detailed evidence appreciation. In dismissing a revision petition challenging charges under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 109(1)/190, 115(2)/190, 132/190, 121(1)/190, 324(5)/190, 324(6)/190, 118(1)/190, and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Court held that an axe blow to the head of a police officer prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of attempt to murder, even if the injury is simple in nature.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from an incident on 16.09.2025, where a police team investigating FIR Nos. 469/2025 and 470/2025 was allegedly attacked by the petitioners and their family members in Khokhariya Colony, Basant Vihar, Police Station Banar, Jodhpur. The petitioners, including Narpat Ram (lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur) and his family members, are accused of attacking the police party with stones and an axe without provocation. Specifically, Assistant Sub-Inspector Ranglal sustained an axe blow to his head and was immediately hospitalized.
Key Facts
- Incident Date: 16.09.2025
- FIR Nos.: 469/2025 and 470/2025
- Location: Khokhariya Colony, Basant Vihar, Police Station Banar, Jodhpur
- Victim: Assistant Sub-Inspector Ranglal
- Weapon Used: Axe
- Injury: Simple injury on forehead (as per injury report dated 17.09.2025)
- Alleged Offences: Under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 109(1)/190, 115(2)/190, 132/190, 121(1)/190, 324(5)/190, 324(6)/190, 118(1)/190, and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Procedural History
- 16.09.2025: Incident occurred; FIRs registered
- 17.09.2025: Injury report of Assistant Sub-Inspector Ranglal recorded
- 19.03.2026: Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metro, framed charges in Sessions Case No. 05/2026 (NCV No. 27/2026)
- 02.04.2026: Impugned order passed by the trial court
- 13.07.2026: Present Criminal Revision Petition No. 684/2026 filed before the Rajasthan High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the impugned orders dated 19.03.2026 and 02.04.2026 and discharge from the alleged offences, contending that the injury sustained was simple and did not disclose an intent to commit murder.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the framing of charges for attempt to murder under Section 121(1) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was justified at the prima facie stage, given that the injury sustained by the victim was simple in nature and not life-threatening.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The injury report dated 17.09.2025 revealed that the injury sustained by Assistant Sub-Inspector Ranglal was simple in nature, negating the inference of intent to cause death.
- The mere infliction of an injury with a sharp-edged weapon does not, by itself, establish the essential ingredients of attempt to murder.
- The trial court mechanically framed charges without independently evaluating the material on record or forming an opinion on whether the essential ingredients of the offences were prima facie made out.
For the Respondent (State)
- The specific allegation in the FIR was that the petitioners attacked the police party with an axe, intending to cause death and prevent the investigation.
- The injury report, though opining the injury as simple, disclosed the use of a sharp-edged weapon (axe) on the victim’s head, which prima facie establishes the intent and knowledge required for attempt to murder.
- At the charge framing stage, the court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists, not to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized the well-settled legal principle that at the stage of framing charges, the court’s role is limited to determining whether the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case against the accused. The Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or weigh its probative value, as such scrutiny is reserved for the trial stage.
The Court observed:
"The specific allegation in the FIR is that the petitioners, with a view to preventing the police party from carrying out the investigation and with the intention of causing the death of the police personnel, attacked them with a sharp-edged weapon, namely, an axe. The injury report of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Ranglal reveals that he sustained an injury on his forehead caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Although the injury has been opined to be simple in nature, the said circumstance, at this stage, prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of the offence of attempt to murder."
The Court further held that merely because the injury was not life-threatening does not negate the requisite intention or knowledge coupled with an overt act towards the commission of the offence. It reasoned that a person who inflicts an axe blow to the head of another cannot ordinarily contend that they lacked the knowledge that such an act was likely to cause death.
The Verdict
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, holding that the trial court’s orders dated 19.03.2026 and 02.04.2026 did not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The charges framed against the petitioners under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were upheld, and the petitioners were directed to face trial for the alleged offences.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prima Facie Intent Suffices at Charge Framing Stage
- Courts will not delve into the severity of injury to negate intent at the charge framing stage. The use of a dangerous weapon (e.g., axe) on a vital body part (e.g., head) will prima facie establish the intent to cause death, even if the injury is simple.
- Practitioners must argue that mere infliction of injury with a dangerous weapon is sufficient to disclose a prima facie case for attempt to murder, regardless of the injury’s severity.
Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction
- The revisional court will not interfere with the trial court’s order unless there is a glaring jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity. The threshold for interference is high, and the revisional court will not reappreciate evidence.
- Defense counsel must focus on demonstrating jurisdictional errors or manifest arbitrariness in the trial court’s order, rather than arguing the merits of the case at the revision stage.
Implications for Police Personnel Assault Cases
-
Assaults on police personnel during the discharge of their duties will be viewed strictly, and the intent to cause death will be readily inferred if a dangerous weapon is used.
-
Prosecutors should emphasize the context of the assault (e.g., during investigation) and the nature of the weapon to strengthen the case for framing charges under attempt to murder provisions.
-
Defense strategies should focus on disputing the overt act or intent, such as proving the weapon was not used with the knowledge that it could cause death, or that the act was in self-defense or without criminal intent.
