Smt. Durga Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2022

[Cites 12, Cited by 4]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Durga Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2022

Bench: Virender Singh

                                1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

                          BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH

                   ON THE 31ST MARCH 2022
              CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1429/2021
Between :

Santram Lodhi, S/o Shri Rajaram Lodhi, Aged
about 26 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o
Village Silari, Post Office Vikrampur, P.S.&
Tehsil Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur M.P.
                                                 ..... Petitioner
(By Shri Pradeep Naveriya, Advocate)

AND
1.    State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Police
Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur M.P.
2.    Bhupendra Patel, S/o Late Bhagchand,
aged about 18 years, R/o Village Silari, Post
Office Vikrampur, P.S. & Tehsil Gotegaon,
District Narsinghpur M.P.
3.    Smt. Durgabai, Wd/o Late Bhagchand,
aged about 36 years, R/o Village Silari, Post
Office Vikrampur, P.S. & Tehsil Gotegaon,
District Narsinghpur M.P.
                                                ...... Respondents

(Shri Dharmesh Chaturvedi, Panel Lawyer for the State)

                              AND

              CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1682/2021
Between :

1.    Smt. Durga Bai W/o Late Bhagchand
Patel, aged 36 years, Occupation Housewife.
2.    Bhupendra Patel, S/o Bhagchand Patel,
aged 19 years, Occupation Agriculturist.
                                                        2



Both resident of Silari Vikrampur, PS
Gotegaon, Tehsil Gotegaon, Distt. Narsinghpur
M.P.
                                                                                   ..... Petitioners
(By Shri Shivkumar Patel, Advocate with
Shri K.S.Patel, Advocate)

AND
1.    State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Police
Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur M.P.
2.    Rajaram S/o Jor Singh Lodhi, aged 70
years, Occupation- agriculturist.
3.   Daulat Singh, S/o Rajaram Lodhi, aged
30 years, Occupation- agriculturist.
4.    Santram S/o Rajaram Lodhi, aged 26
years, Occupation- agriculturist.
5.   Narwar Singh, S/o Rajaram Lodhi, aged
40 years, Occupation- agriculturist.

All residents of Silari Vikrampur, PS and Tehsil
Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur M.P.
                                                                               ...... Respondents

(Shri Dharmesh Chaturvedi, Panel Lawyer for the State)

..............................................................................................................
         These revisions coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following :

                                             ORDER

Both these cross revisions have been filed against order framing charge under Section 326, 326/34 IPC dated 24.03.2021 and framing of charge dated 09.04.2021 under Section 294, 323 (4 counts) read with 323/34, 324 (4 counts) read with 324/34, 325, 506- II by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in ST No.29/2021.

2. The accused persons namely Durga Bai and Bhupendra Patel have come with a prayer to omit charge under Section 326, 326/34 IPC by filing CRR No.1682/2021, while complainant Santram Lodhi has approached this Court by filing CRR No.1429/2021 with a prayer to frame charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused persons.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 23.05.2020 complainant Rajaram Lodhi alongwith Santram Lodhi, Daulat Singh Lodhi and Narwar Patel lodged a report in the police station to the effect that at about 6.30 am on account of tilling the fields by JCB, accused persons Bhagchand Patel, his son Bhupendra Patel and wife Durga Bai assaulted them with lathi and sickle due to which they received injuries. A case under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 34 IPC was registered against the accused persons and investigation was triggered. Spot map was prepared. Injured were sent for medical examination. Since a fracture was detected in the hand of injured Rajaram Lodhi, therefore, Sec.325 IPC was enhanced. Statements of complainant and other witnesses were recorded. On disclosure of accused persons Durga Bai and Bhupendra, a sickle and an iron rod, respectively, were recovered. After investigation, charge sheet No.297/20 dated 15.07.20 was filed against accused Durga Bai and Bhupendra.

4. Since cross-case being ST No.418/2020 under Section 302, 201, 294, 323/34 of IPC was already pending before the Third Additional Sessions Court, Narsinghpur, upon filing charge-sheet in this crime No.253/2020 under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506/34 IPC, this case is also transmitted to the same Sessions Court. The Third Additional Sessions Court framed charges against the petitioners under Section 294, 323, 506/34 IPC and proceeded with the trial.

During the trial, the complainant filed an application under Section 216 CrPC. This application was partly allowed vide the impugned order. The learned Sessions Court observed that there is no sufficient evidence to frame charge under Section 307 IPC but since deadly weapon i.e. sickle and iron rod have been used in the incident and grievous injury has been caused to the victims and injured Rajaram remained hospitalized for more than 20 days, the charge under Section 326, 326/34 IPC is made out and altered the charge already framed and charged the accused persons under Section 326, 326/34 IPC in addition to the charges already framed.

5. The petitioner/accused persons of CRR No.1429/2021 are aggrieved by framing of charge under Section 326, 326/34 IPC while the complainant/petitioners of CRR No.1682/2021 are aggrieved by not framing charge under Section 307 IPC.

6. Both the parties have canvassed their counter arguments which have been considered by this Court. Copy of the charge-sheet is perused.

7. According to the FIR No.253/2020, a brawl erupted between two parties; Santram Lodhi, Daulat Singh Lodhi and Narwar Patel on the one side and Bhagchand, Bhupendra and Durga Bai on the other side.

8. As per the FIR lodged by the complainant Rajaram Patel, Bhupendra inflicted rod on his head and right elbow due to which he sustained injuries. On medical examination, an abrasion on skull and swelling on right elbow caused by hard and blunt object were detected. He was advised x-ray of right elbow wherein fracture of right humerus bone was detected. The evidence placed on record 5 shows that Rajaram remained hospitalized from 01.06.2020 to 27.06.2020. Thus, prima facie, there is sufficient evidence that in the incident, Rajaram sustained grievous injury caused by iron rod.

9. Now the question is whether an iron rod falls in the category of weapons mentioned in Section 326 IPC and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mathai vs. State of Kerala (2005) 3 SCC 260 has held that a 'dangerous weapon' would depend upon the facts of each case having regard to the size, sharpness etc. of the weapon. In this case, an iron rod has been used to cause grievous injury on the head and hand of the victim. Rod is such type of article which, if used as a weapon is likely to cause death.

10. The allegation against the accused-Bhupendra is that he caused grievous hurt to the victim by means of iron rod and accused Durga Bai was with him at the time of the incident and actively participated in the same, therefore, their common intention can also be prima facie inferred. Thus, the trial Court has not erred in framing charge under Section 326, 326/34 IPC. However, there is no mention in the FIR that intention of the accused persons was to cause death of the victim, therefore, here also the learned trial Court has not committed any error in refusing to charge under Section 307 IPC.

11. In the result, both the petitions preferred by their respective petitioners being devoid of merits are dismissed accordingly.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE anand Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Date: 2022.04.30 11:21:01 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court