Dismissed¶26

Praffula S/O Narayan Mahajan and Another. v. the State of Mah.T Hr. Pso Ps Samraspura Achalpur Dist.Amravati

Bombay HC27 Jan 2025REVN/8/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

REVN No. 8 of 2024, Bombay HC Nagpur Bench, decided 22/09/2025, Rajnish R. Vyas, J. [Neutral citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:9647]. Revision against rejection of discharge (order dated 12/07/2023, Additional Sessions, Achalpur) in a Section 307 IPC case. Held: injury is not sine qua non for charging under S.307 IPC; offence under S.307 IPC is intention-based and knowledge-based, and knowledge of the accused can be tested only at trial; contention that case falls under S.324/323 IPC rejected in view of earlier vaginoplasty surgery of the informant and blunt trauma injury to vaginal area. Revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The injury is not sine qua non for charging a person under Section 307 IPC. ¶26

Praffula S/O Narayan Mahajan and Another. vs the State of Mah.T Hr. Pso Ps Samraspura Achalpur Dist.Amravati — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the applicants (original accused), or whether on the FIR and charge-sheet material the case falls at the most under Sections 324/323 IPC given the simple nature of the injury, so as to entitle them to discharge.

¶19

Court's answer

The injury is not sine qua non for charging a person under Section 307 IPC.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The offence under Section 307 IPC is not only intention based but also knowledge based; the knowledge of the applicants can be tested during the course of trial only, and accordingly the Court is not inclined to interfere with the refusal of discharge.

¶26

Key takeaways

Considering that an earlier surgery had been performed on the informant and the injury was caused on her private part, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Rajnish R. Vyas, J.), Criminal Revision Application (REVN) No. 8 of 2024, decided 22/09/2025 [2025:BHC-NAG:9647]: Applicants, the original accused, challenged the order dated 12/07/2023 of the learned Additional Sessions, Achalpur rejecting their discharge application in a case under Section 307 IPC, contending that the injury was simple in nature and that on the FIR and charge-sheet material the case would fall under Sections 324 or 323 IPC. The informant's case was that she had undergone a surgery of vaginoplasty eight years before the incident; the Medical Officer, Sub-District Hospital, Achalpur recorded the provisional diagnosis as 'Blunt Trauma to vaginal area and sever abdominal pain', while a report relied on by the applicants noted no external injury, only pain and discomfort at the genital region. Holding that the injury is not sine qua non for charging a person under Section 307 IPC, and that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not only intention based but also knowledge based, the knowledge of the applicants being testable during the course of trial only, and considering the earlier surgery performed on the informant and the injury caused on her private part, the Court declined to interfere with the order impugned and dismissed the Criminal Revision Application.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:9647

¶2

REVN 8-2024 (J).odt 1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 8 OF 2024

¶5

Prafulla s/o. Narayan Mahajan, Aged about 65 years, Occu – Agriculturist

¶6

Lallita w/o. Prafulla Mahajan, Aged : 54 Years, Occ : Household, R/o. : Sarmaspura Achalpur City, Tq. Achalpur Dist. Amravati

¶7

…. APPLICANTS

¶8

….VERSUS….

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, P.S. Samraspura, Achalpur, Dist. Amravati .… NON-APPLICANT

¶10

Shri P.V.Navlani, Advocate for applicants. Shri N.S.Autkar, APP for non-applicant/State.

¶11

CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.

DATE: 22/09/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard.

Admit.

¶16

The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of both the parties.

¶17

REVN 8-2024 (J).odt 2/4

¶18

By way of instant application, the applicants who are the original accused are challenging the order rejecting their discharge application by learned Additional Sessions, Achalpur on 12/07/2023.

¶19

In short, it is the case of the applicants that the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) is not made out against them since the injury is of simple in nature. It is further pointed out that, if the averments made in the First Information Report (FIR) as well as the material in the charge-sheet are seen at the most, the case would fall under Section 324 or 323 of IPC.

¶20

Per contra, Mr. Autkar, learned APP for the State has brought my attention to the medical evidence which according to him makes out a case for prosecution under Section 307 of IPC.

¶21

With the help of both the parties, I have gone through the charge-sheet as well as the medical evidence produced. In short, it is the case of the informant that before eight years from the date of the incidence, she had undergone

¶22

REVN 8-2024 (J).odt 3/4

¶23

a surgery of vaginoplasty. On the day of incident, when the applicant nos. 1 and 2 who are the husband and wife were proceeding, they saw the informant and uttered some words which caused annoyance to the informant. According to the informant, applicant no. 2 caught-hold her and the applicant no. 1 beaten her which resulted into injury which is mentioned at page 130 of the application filed. I have also perused page 106 of the application which is the medical report. The said medical report issued by Medical Officer, Sub-District Hospital, Achalpur if perused, it would reveal that the Provisional Diagnosis is Blunt Trauma to vaginal area and sever abdominal pain.

¶24

Considering the fact that, earlier surgery was performed on the informant and injury has been caused on the private part, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. At this stage, Mr. Navlani, learned counsel for the applicant has brought my attention to page 115 wherein no external injury has been noticed, and only pain and discomfort at the genital region is mentioned. According to

¶25

REVN 8-2024 (J).odt 4/4

¶26

him, even two other reports corroborate the aforesaid finding. Be that as it may, the injury is not sine qua non for charging a person under Section 307 of IPC. The offence under Section 307 of IPC is not only intention based but also knowledge based offence. The knowledge of the applicants can be tested during the course of trial only. That being so, I am not inclined to interfere in the order. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed .

¶27

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)

¶28

B.T.Khapekar

¶29

Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2025 14:12:02

Praffula S/O Narayan Mahajan and Another. v. the State of Mah.T Hr. Pso Ps Samraspura Achalpur Dist.Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praffula S/O Narayan Mahajan and Another. v. the State of Mah.T Hr. Pso Ps Samraspura Achalpur Dist.Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shamrao S/O Bhivaji Arma vs the State of Maharashtra

Arbaz Ahemad Farooque Ahemad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kanifnath Pandharinath Nimse and Other vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vitthal Shrawan Mohkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rukmin Pandurang Shinde and Ors. vs the Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Osmanabad and Anr.

Rahemin Fatima Aawez Ahemad and Another vs the State Maharashtra and Another