Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kashiram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2018
1 CRR-5805-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRR-5805-2018
(KASHIRAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 10-12-2018
Shri JS Rathore, counsel for the applicants.
Shri RK Awasthi, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/
State.
This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 13/11/2018, passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No. 245/2017, by which charges under Sections 147, 148, 326, 506 Part II, 294, 323 of IPC have been framed against the applicant No.3, whereas charges under Section 148, 326/149, 506 Part II, 294, 323 of IPC have been framed against the respondents No. 1, 2, 4 to 6.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the complainant lodged a report that on 28/05/2016 at about 09:30 am, he was quarrying in his field by JSB machine and at that time, all the applicants came there with common intention. The applicant No.2 was armed with his 12 bore licensed gun, whereas applicant No.3 was having an axe and the other applicants were having with lathi and cans, applicant no.2 abused him. When he objected to it, then the applicant No.2 fired a gunshot in air. When the complainant tried to run away from the place of incident, then he was assaulted by the applicant No.3 by an axe on his head, which landed on the right side of his head. The applicant No.4 assaulted him by a lathi on the right eye and after hearing his cries, his father and brother Lokendra came on the spot to save him and he was beaten by all the applicants.
Initially, the police registered the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 324, 506, 336 of IPC and later on, the offence under Section 2 CRR-5805-2018 325 of IPC was added.
In a cross-case on the report of the accused/applicants, an offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 307 of IPC was registered against the complainant party in Crime No.150/2016.
The police has filed the charge sheet in both the criminal cases, which were committed to the Court of Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena. By the impugned order dated 13/11/2018, charges have been framed for the above-mentioned offences.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that since a cross- case has been registered against the complainant party and the accused party was also beaten by the complainant party, therefore, no offence would be made out under Section 326 of IPC and in fact, the offence under Section 335 of IPC would be made out, whereas it is submitted by the counsel for the State that whether the applicants were the aggressors or the complainant party was the aggressor, is to be decided by the trial Court and at present, it cannot be said that the applicants under the grave and sudden provocation had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant party.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It has been fairly conceded by counsel for the applicants that the injured Ramnaresh had suffered injuries on his head and fracture of right parietal bone of skull has been found. However, it is the case of the applicants that since they had voluntarily caused grievous injuries to the complainant party on grave and sudden provocation, therefore, no offence under Section 326 of the IPC would be made out. At the most, they can be prosecuted for offence under Section 335 of IPC. Whether the applicants had any sudden and grave provocation is a question of fact which is yet to be decided by the trial Court. Merely because, the cross- case has been registered would not ipso facto mean that the complainant 3 CRR-5805-2018 party were the aggressor.
Thus, considering the allegations made against the applicants as well as the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant party and coupled with the fact that the disputed question of fact as to who was the aggressor, is to be decided by the trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 13/11/2018, passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No.245/2017, does not require any interference.
Accordingly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2018.12.14 16:13:54 +05'30'