Summary
The Supreme Court directed framing of an attempt-to-murder charge after the courts below prematurely evaluated supposed inconsistencies in two prosecution medical reports. The reports prima facie supported Section 307, while detailed assessment of their reliability belonged to trial after the doctors testified. The accused retained the right to contest that charge on the evidence, and the direction to frame it was not a determination of guilt.
Issues
- Whether alleged inconsistencies in medical reports justified discharge from the Section 307 charge.
- Whether the evidence prima facie required framing that charge alongside the remaining charges.
Held
- The courts below wrongly appreciated the medical reports to find faults and inconsistencies at the charge stage. That evaluative exercise required prosecution evidence, including examination of the doctors, which had not yet occurred. (¶ 11–14)
- On their face the prosecution reports disclosed a prima facie Section 307 case, requiring that charge to be framed with the other charges. (¶ 15–16)
- The accused could argue after evidence that Section 307 was not established. Final adjudication had to rest independently on the trial evidence, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations. (¶ 17)
Result
Appeal allowed and impugned order set aside. Trial court directed to frame the Section 307 IPC charge against the three accused, leaving final merits open.