SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has refused to quash murder charges framed against a Reasi resident accused of fatally assaulting a milk supplier with a wooden stick, holding that questions relating to intention, causation of death and sufficiency of evidence can only be determined during trial and not in proceedings seeking quashment of charges.
Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed a petition filed by Manga Ram, a resident of Reasi, challenging an order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi, dated January 31, 2024, by which charges under Sections 302 (murder) and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code had been framed against him in connection with FIR No. 255/2022 registered at Police Station Reasi.
The petitioner was represented by senior advocate Rakesh Chargotra assisted by advocate Abhishek Verma, while the Union Territory was represented by Government Advocate Sumeet Bhatia.
According to the prosecution, Deepak Kumar, who worked in a private school and also supplied milk to the accused, was allegedly attacked on October 6, 2022, while returning home after purchasing household items from Reasi Bazaar. The prosecution alleged that Manga Ram wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him with a wooden stick, inflicting blows on his head and other parts of the body.
The injured man was shifted to hospital by his wife Manu Devi and his brother Sandeep Kumar. Owing to the seriousness of his injuries, he was later referred to Government Medical College, Jammu, where he underwent surgery. However, his condition deteriorated and he died on January 15, 2023, while undergoing treatment in the intensive care unit.
Initially, police registered the case under Sections 341 and 323 IPC on the basis of a complaint lodged by the deceased’s brother. As the investigation progressed and the victim’s condition worsened, additional offences under Sections 325 and 307 IPC were incorporated. Following the victim’s death and completion of investigation, police concluded that offences under Sections 302 and 341 IPC were made out and filed the charge sheet accordingly.
The petitioner argued that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not disclose the offence of murder. It was contended that there was no intention to kill the deceased and that the alleged assault involved only two blows with a wooden stick. The petitioner further submitted that the medical record did not conclusively establish that the injuries caused by him resulted in death.
He also argued that, at best, the case could fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. The defence additionally questioned whether the alleged weapon of offence was capable of causing death and referred to the medical cause of death as “Recurrent acute on chronic SDH with complications,” suggesting that other medical factors may have contributed to the victim’s death.
Rejecting these submissions, Justice Azeem observed that the investigating officer is empowered to alter or add penal provisions during investigation on the basis of evidence collected and is not bound by the offences mentioned in the original FIR. The court noted that the trial court was required to consider the charge sheet, witness statements and medical evidence rather than the allegations contained in the FIR alone.
The court also recorded that two prosecution witnesses examined so far, namely the deceased’s wife and brother, had prima facie supported the prosecution case and corroborated allegations that the deceased sustained head injuries in the assault.
On the issue of causation, the court noted that the post-mortem report specifically attributed the death to “Recurrent acute on chronic SDH with complications” arising from the assault allegedly committed by the accused. It observed that the doctor’s opinion constituted prima facie evidence linking the injuries to the death and was sufficient at the stage of framing of charges.
Justice Azeem further held that questions regarding intention, knowledge, the effect of the weapon used and the precise cause of death were matters requiring appreciation of evidence during trial and could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Holding that all the grounds raised by the petitioner involved triable issues and that the High Court could not conduct a “mini trial” while exercising inherent jurisdiction, the court found no legal or factual infirmity in the order framing charges. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the trial was allowed to proceed.
The judgment was reserved on April 10, 2026, and pronounced on April 18, 2026
