Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2016
-: 1 :-
Criminal Revision No.179/2016
30/04/2016
Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S. Parmar , learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
THIS Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brief "Code") has been preferred against order dated 16/12/2015 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur District Shajapur in S.T. No. 249/2015 whereby the charges under Section 307 of the IPC has been framed against applicant.
[2] Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that complainant has lodged the report that he was going for walk at about 7:00 p.m. going when he reached near Manglik Bhawan then Satish met him and told that you used to steal the wheat and gran and sale the same and he would told to his maternal brother Manoj, then complainant told that he never steal, then applicant Satish took out a knife from his pocket and gave a knife blow of his abdomen area. When Manoj came there then Satish flew away from there. On the basis of the Dehati Nalsi a Crime No. 169/2015 at Police Station Avantipur Badodiya for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC was registered. After due investigation charge sheet has been filed under Section 307 of the IPC . Learned trial Court has framed the charges against applicant under Section 307 of the IPC. Being aggrieved with this order this Criminal Revision has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that impugned order is illegal. Prima facie there is no evidence and material to frame the charges against applicant under Section 307 of the IPC. It is further submitted that as per X-ray report no bony injury has been found . It is further submits that injury alleged to have been caused by the applicant has been found simple in nature. It is further submits that at the most offence under Section 324 of the IPC is made out. Hence, prayed that impugned order be set-aside and applicant be acquitted from the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.
On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State supported the impugned order submitting that injury has been caused on the vital part of the body and injury has been caused by the knife to applicant with a intention to kill him. He further submits that trial Court -: 2 :- has rightly framed the charge under Section 307 of the IPC against applicant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of revision.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the charge sheet. In the FIR lodged it is alleged that applicant gave a knife blow with an intention to kill the injured. As per medical report of the injured one incise wound over right lower chest (Hypocordiac region)has been found and the dimension of the wound is 1cmx0.3cm. The injured was advised for surgery-ological specialist from Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. As per the report of the RSO, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal injury has been reported to be simple in nature.
At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed.
In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, 2012 AIR SCW 5139, the Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed.
So far as the intention of committing murder is concerned , it can be gathered from the circumstances of the case, like the previous relation between the complainant and accused, the weapon used in commission of the offence, the part of the body which was targeted and the force which has been applied in causing the injury etc. In the instant case there is no material to show that there was a -: 3 :- previous enimity between the applicant and injured. It is true that the weapon used by the applicant is dangerous one and also the part which has been choosen to target is vital part of the body, however, no repeated blow has been given by the applicant and nature of the injury reported to be simple in nature by the specialist, the inference of under section 307 cannot be drawn. Looking to the aforesaid circumstances of the case at the most case comes within the purview of Section 324 of the IPC.
In view of the above discussion this revision deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. Consequently, the order passed by Ist ASJ, Shujalpur District Shajapur on 16/12/2015 in ST No. 249/2015 is hereby quashed and applicant be discharged from the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.
Learned trial Court is directed to frame the charges against under Section 324 of the IPC.
Copy of this order be sent to trial Court for information and compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(D.K.Paliwal)
skt Judge