PANAJI
The North Goa Additional Sessions Court has rejectedpleas by accused Chirag Dangui and Dattaraj Kalangutkar seeking discharge oralteration of the charge of attempt to murder, ruling that both must face trialunder Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a 2024 knifeassault at Mapusa.
In the order pronounced on Friday, Additional SessionsJudge-2 (FTC), Merces, Shilpa Pandit, held that the prosecution had placedsufficient prima facie material on record to frame charges against the accusedunder Sections 307, 504 (intentional insult), 506(ii) (criminal intimidation)and 212 (harbouring an offender) read with Section 34 (common intention) of theIPC.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurredshortly after midnight on February 22, 2024, at Ghateshwarnagar, Khorlim,Mapusa, where Dangui allegedly abused the complainant, Mohammad Usman, beforeassaulting him with a knife on vital parts of his body, causing grievousinjuries. The prosecution further alleged that Kalangutkar assisted Dangui inevading arrest after the incident.
The defence had argued that the accused lacked theintention to kill the complainant and sought alteration of the charge fromSection 307 to Section 326 of the IPC, contending that the alleged threats tokill the complainant “if they saw him again” indicated there was no intentionto commit murder during the assault.
Rejecting the contention, the court observed that thecomplainant had consistently stated that he was attacked with a knife on hisface, chest and abdomen and had suffered serious bodily injuries. It held thatmerely because the complainant survived the assault could not negate theallegation of attempt to murder at the stage of framing charges.
“The very fact that accused no.1 assaulted thecomplainant on vital parts of his body shows that there was intention or atleast the knowledge that it could cause the death of the complainant. Hence,there is no merit in the arguments... to alter and frame the charge for theoffence under Section 326 of IPC instead of 307,” it said, adding,
“Merely because accused no.1 and 2 did not kill him andleft him with the threats of dire consequences, it cannot be said that there isno material to frame charge against them for the offence under Section 307 ofIPC.”
Relying on statements of the complainant andeyewitnesses, along with the medical evidence, the court concluded that therewas sufficient material to proceed against both accused and directed them toanswer charges under the relevant sections.
