Madhya Pradesh High Court
Awadesh Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2016
Author: S.K.Awasthi
Bench: S.K.Awasthi
-( 1 )- CRR No. 509/2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No 509/2014
Awadesh Singh Sikarwar
Versus
State of MP and others
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.D.Agarwal, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent
No.1/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
Criminal Revision No 694/2014
Raghuvir Singh & others
Versus
State of MP
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Asad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.D.Agarwal, learned Panel Lawyer, for the
respondent/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(02.12.2016 ) The present order will govern fate of criminal revision no. 509/2014 and criminal revision no. 694/2014, as the facts leading to filing of both the applications are same and the impugned order is also same.
Criminal Revision no. 509/2014
2. The present applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2014 passed in S.T. No. 148/2014 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Morena, -( 2 )- CRR No. 509/2014 whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the respondents no.2 to 6 for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 and Section 506-II of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). The grievance of the applicant is that he sustained injury on head due to which fracture has been caused to him and subsequently brain surgery was performed on him. Further, the police had filed the charge sheet for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/149 of IPC, therefore, the impugned order by which the charge has been diluted to Section 326 of IPC is bad in law.
3. The facts necessary for decision of the present revision are that on 11.01.2014 the accused persons intercepted the complainant while he was returning back from his agricultural land and co-accused Ramsahai inflicted injury on the head by using lathi due to which the complainant started bleeding. Subsequently, the other co-accused surrounded the applicant/complainant and caused more injuries at this stage, due to intervention of certain people the accused person left the place of incidence and while going they intimidated the applicant for dire consequences. According to the prosecution, the cause for scuffle is that the accused persons wanted to purchase the adjoining agricultural land, although the same was purchased by the applicant/complainant due to which they had enmity against the applicant.
4. The Police investigated the matter and thereafter filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, -( 3 )- CRR No. 509/2014 323, 506-II read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 307 of IPC. Since the offences involved were triable by Court of session, the Magistrate concerned committed the matter to the Court of Session. After committal of the case the trial court fixed the matter for framing of the charges. The trial court on 10.06.2014 after going through contents of the charge sheet observed that a single injury has been inflicted on the vital part whereas other injuries are not so grave in nature, therefore the intention to commit murder is not found. Consequently, the trial court framed charges under Section 326 r/w Section 34 and under Section 506-II of IPC. The applicant is aggrieved by this order of the trial court whereby the charges have been diluted from Section 307 IPC to Section 326 of IPC.
5. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, as per the report of the radiologist relating to skull of the applicant coupled with the fact that he was admitted in the hospital and a brain surgery was performed, the intention to commit murder is clearly made out. In this regard, it is also submitted that the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC also indicate that the accused persons had intention to cause murder, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and a direction be issued to the trial court to frame charges under Section 307 of IPC.
6. Apart from above no other submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for applicant.
7. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the charge sheet filed on record, it appears that the reasoning given by the trial court for diluting the -( 4 )- CRR No. 509/2014 charge of Section 307 of IPC and framing the charge of Section 326 of IPC cannot be faulted with as the statements prima facie reveal that accused persons had opportunity to inflict more injuries to the complainant on the vital part of the bodies, whereas only a single injury has been inflicted. Accordingly, it can be observed that framing of charge under Section 326 of IPC is proper. With respect to medical report of the complainant indicating skull fracture and subsequent brain surgery, it is observed that for framing of charges sole criterion is not the nature of injury but also the surrounding circumstances and other evidences which reflect that the intention to commit murder for attracting charge under Section 307 of IPC cannot be gathered.
8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the revision application deserves to be dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations made are prima facie in nature and the trial court shall proceed uninfluenced by the discussion made above.
9. Consequently, the Revision stands dismissed.
Criminal Revision no. 694/2014
10. The facts leading to filing of present revision are not reiterated as the same have already been narrated in earlier part of the order.
11. The present applicants are aggrieved by the order of trial court framing charge under Section 326 of IPC. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the nature of injury and other circumstances at best constitutes offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC, due to which the impugned order deserves to be interfered and the direction to frame charge under -( 5 )- CRR No. 509/2014 Section 325 of IPC in place of Section 326 of IPC be passed.
12. In the context of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, if the charge sheet is examined, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the trial court has rightly framed charge for Section 326 of IPC because the victim was required to undergo brain surgery and was admitted in the hospital for the period of around 7 days, apart from it several injuries were inflicted. It is also observed that the nature of head injury was opined to be fatal.
13. On cumulative consideration of the discussion made above, it can be safely observed that no error can be found in the order of the trial court by which the charges under section 326 of IPC have been framed. Consequently, revision is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observation made are prima facie in nature and the trial court shall proceed uninfluenced by the discussion made above.
(S.K.Awasthi) Judge.
(yogesh)