Cuttack: Orissa High Court has ruled the conduct of an accused at the spot prior to the occurrence, at the time of occurrence and after the occurrence was relevant for adjudicating whether he had intention to commit the crime or not.

The court held: "Preparation to commit a crime is always done secretly. Therefore, it is very difficult to find direct evidence in that respect."

Justice S.K. Sahoo gave the ruling while considering a petition seeking intervention against framing of charges against an accused by a trial court.

The matter related to a case arising out of allegations that the accused, Raj Kishore Agarwal, had tried to kill Narayan Prasad Bhawania with whom he had enmity, by running him over with a car.

A case was registered at Jharsuguda police station under section 307 (attempt to murder) and 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt). The police submitted the charge-sheet accordingly before the local magistrate, which took cognisance of the charges and committed the case for trial to the court of additional sessions judge, Jharsuguda for trial.

The court of additional sessions judge however dropped the attempt to murder along with other charge and framed charges against the accused under sections 279 (rash driving endangering human life), 337 (causing hurt by act of endangering life) and 338 (causing grievous hurt) and transferred the case to court of chief judicial magistrate.

Bhawania filed a petition in the high court challenging the framing of charges by the trial court.

While allowing Bhawania's petition Justice Sahoo rejected the trial court's verdict that the entire allegation did not reveal that there was any preparation made by the accused with intention to commit an offence of murder.

"I am of the view that the trial court was not justified in not framing the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code even though charge-sheet has been submitted for such offence and cognisance has been taken," Justice Sahoo ruled in his February 5 order. Accordingly, Justice Sahoo in his order directed the additional sessions judge, Jharsuguda, to frame additional charge under section 307 of the IPC against the accused apart from the charges under sections 279/337/338 of the IPC that have already been framed and proceed with the trial in accordance with law.