Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1 CRR-531-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1872 of 2025
MANOJ SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs. Shraddha Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 417 of 2025
AMIT SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs. Shraddha Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 530 of 2025
ABHINAV BAROLIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs. Shraddha Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State.
WITH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 7/25/2025
6:25:09 PM
2 CRR-531-2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 531 of 2025
SUMIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs. Shraddha Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 532 of 2025
GUDDU @ YOGENDRA CHOUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs. Shraddha Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
In criminal revision No.1872/2025, an application (I.A. No.9759/2025) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed.
2. As per office note, revision (CRR No.1872/2025) has been preferred after a delay of 36 days.
3. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by affidavit of applicant, I.A. No.9759/2025 is allowed and disposed of. Delay caused in presentation of revision is hereby condoned.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, arguments are heard finally.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 7/25/2025 6:25:09 PM3 CRR-531-2025
5. This order shall govern the disposal of all above criminal revisions as same have been filed assailing the order dated 18.12.2024 whereby the learned XVIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal has framed charges against the applicants.
6. Theses criminal revisions under Section 438/442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., 1973) have been filed by the applicants assailing the order dated 18.12.2024 whereby the learned XVIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal has framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 294, 332/149, 353/149, 336/149, 427/149 of IPC & Section 308 of IPC or in alternate Section 308/149 of IPC and also Section 3 of Damage of Public Property Act read with Section 149 of IPC.
7. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have assailed only the charge framed under Section 308 of IPC or in alternate Section 308 read with Section 149 of IPC. It is submitted that no offences under Section 308 of IPC in alternate Section 308/149 of IPC is made out as injuries are alleged to have been caused by throwing stones on the police force, who were deployed to maintain Law and Order. It is further contended that to appreciate the provisions of Section 308 of IPC, the necessary ingredients is that if any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 7/25/2025 6:25:09 PM 4 CRR-531-2025 to murder, and that one committed an act with that intent or knowledge. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not.
8. It is submitted that pre-requisite for invoking Section 308 of IPC, the act should have been done by a person with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act causes death, then such person would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is further submitted that in the case in hand, only two or three injuries have been sustained by three police personnel which were simple in nature, therefore, there was no sufficient prima-facie material available before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to frame charge against the applicants for commission of offence under Section 308 of IPC. Thus, it is prayed that charge framed by learned XVIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal vide order dated 18.12.2024 against the applicants under Section 308 of IPC in alternate Section 308 read with Section 149 of IPC may be quashed.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants, but has fairly admitted that only three police personnel, namely, Manish Raj, Neeraj and Bhupendra have sustained injuries, which are simple in nature.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 7/25/2025 6:25:09 PM5 CRR-531-2025
11. On perusal of the charge-sheet, it is apparent that only three police personnel have sustained injuries, which are simple in nature. As per the recital of the FIR, it is alleged that during a protest organized by political party, the applicants alongwith others reached at Roshanpura Chouraha and from there, they reached at Banganga Chouraha and when they were asked to go back, they all were abusing and throwing stones and also manhandled some government employees.
12. On perusal of the material available on record and the facts & circumstances of the present case, it is candid that no material was available on record to show that the applicants have any knowledge or intention to cause death of any of the police personnel or government employee. The injuries sustained by three police personnel are also simple in nature and does not point towards an offence under Section 308 of IPC. If injuries are simple in nature that would not mean an offence under Section 308 of IPC is made out.
13. That Section 308 IPC is in two parts. The first part deals with a situation where if an act is done by a person, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, then such person would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The second type of circumstance contemplated under the said Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 7/25/2025 6:25:09 PM 6 CRR-531-2025 Section is when hurt is caused to any person by such act, as mentioned in the first part of the section, then the quantum of punishment would increase to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Therefore, physical hurt is not a necessary prerequisite for invoking the provisions of Section 308 IPC, which fact is borne out from a bare reading of the aforesaid section, and any hurt which is caused to the victim would only serve to enhance the quantum of sentence. There is no material or any opinion of the expert doctor in the field in this present case, against the petitioner that the injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. If death cannot be caused by such injury, there is no question of the petitioner being prosecuted under Section 308 IPC. A bare reading of the provision of Section 308 IPC would show that even when no hurt is caused, the offence may be made out if other ingredients are fulfilled. A comprehensive reading of provision only reveals what has been stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Vs. NCT of Delhi and others, 1998 (8) SCC 557 as below -
"4............................................offence punishable under Section 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not. It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 308 IPC whereas punishment for simple hurts can be meted out under Sections 323 and 324 and for grievous hurts under Sections 325 and 326 IPC."Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 7/25/2025 6:25:09 PM
7 CRR-531-2025
14. In the light of the foregoing discussions and on scanning material available in the charge-sheet, it is apparent that no material was available before the learned Trial Judge to frame charge against the applicants under Section 308 of IPC or in alternate Section 308/149 of IPC. Hence, the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by XVIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Session Trial No.753/2024 pertaining to framing charge under Section 308 of IPC in alternate Section 308/149 of IPC against the applicants, is hereby quashed.
15. Consequently, these criminal revisions stand allowed and disposed of to the extent as above.
16. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Court concerned through Sessions Judge, Bhopal for necessary information.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE @shish Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 7/25/2025 6:25:09 PM