Madhya Pradesh High Court
Malkhan Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14342
1 CRR-3767-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 11 th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3767 of 2023
MALKHAN SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate with Shri Prabal Pratap Singh Solanki -
Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Harish Sharma - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC being aggrieved by impugned order dated 17.07.2023 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in S.T.No.104/2022, whereby charges under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323 r/w Section 149 (5 counts), 324 r/w Section 149, 325 r/w Section 149 (4 counts) and in alternative 326 r/w Section 149 (3 counts), 307 in alternative 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC, have been framed.
2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 28.06.2022 at about 02:00 PM, complainant and other victims were at the main road of Village Jatpura, at that time, petitioners/accused persons came there with common intention and stopped the complainant and other victim persons not to do election campaign. When the complainant objected, then petitioners abused them in filthy language and petitioner Malkhan Yadav hit Farsa to the head, left eye of victim Majboot Singh, petitioner Bhaiyalal also caused injury to Majboot Singh on his right hand, left Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 7/17/2025 5:29:29 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14342 2 CRR-3767-2023 hand and right leg. Other co-accused persons also committed marpeet with Kishan Singh. Monu Yadav, Pravendra, Suraj Yadav, Golu Yadav, Halke Yadav, due to which they have sustained certain injuries. When the complainant and his father Sambal Singh Yadav tried to rescue, then Sonu @ Sunder Yadav and Rajendra Yadav, both of them committed marpeet with them and Pravendra which caused injury to the head of the complainant. Complainant lodged an FIR at Police Station Shamshabad, District Vidisha. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Trial Court and later on, matter has been committed to the Court of Session and further transferred to Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha.
4. Trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, vide order dated 17.07.2023 framed the aforesaid charges upon the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioners have preferred this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that FIR has been registered only for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC and after investigation, offence under Sections 325 and 326 of IPC has been additionally added, but offence under Sections 307 or 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC was not registered at the time of lodging FIR and no charge-sheet has been filed for the aforesaid charges, but the Trial Court without having any cogent evidence regarding ingredients of Section 307 of IPC framed the charges under Section 307 in alternative 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC, therefore, the impugned order of framing charges is illegal and contrary to law because the petitioners are having no intention to kill the complainant and nothing is available on record that victims have sustained any injury on vital part or injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, he prays that the impugned order regarding framing of charges under Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 7/17/2025 5:29:29 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14342 3 CRR-3767-2023 Sections 326 and 307 of IPC be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that the Trial Court, on the basis of statements of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence, framed the aforesaid charges, therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference.
7. Both the parties heard and perused the record.
8. It is the settled preposition of law that the accused like petitioners/applicants may be tried and convicted for such offending act, which actually committed and not for that act, which in the available circumstances, they could have committed, but did not commit. So, keeping in view such preposition in the available circumstances, this Court has to answer the question, whether the Trial Court has rightly framed the charge under Sections 326, 307, 307/34 and other charges against the petitioners.
9. From perusal of the MLC report of the victims Monu Yadav, Majboot Singh, Sambal Singh, Halke Yadav, Pravesh Yadav, Suraj Yadav, Amol, Kishan Singh, Pravendra Yadav, Laxman Yadav and Golu Yadav, it is apparent that all the victim persons have sustained only simple injuries and they did not sustain any fracture or bony injury. In query report, concerned doctor categorically mentioned that injured did not sustain any fracture or bony injury and nature of injuries are not fatal for life. Apart from the above, from perusal of the RSO report and C.T. Scan of the victim Majboot Singh, Sambal Singh, Kishan Singh and Gajendra, it appears that none of the victim sustained any bony injury or any injury on vital part of the body.
10. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhallu @ Balkishan Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 7/17/2025 5:29:29 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14342 4 CRR-3767-2023 Yadav and Another Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2014(1) MPLJ (Cri.) 480 has held that no fracture found below injury, no symptom of brain hemorrhage found, no other injury was found fatal grave in nature. It cannot be said that petitioners intended to kill victim persons or victim persons sustained fatal injury, therefore, matter of the victim persons does not fall within the purview of Section 307 of IPC. The same principle has been laid down by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Roop Singh and Others Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R. (2012) M.P. 1048 and Ramnath @ Rammu Gond and Others Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R. (2012) M.P. 587 .
11. Although learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that at the time of framing of charges, no minute scrutiny can be done and intention is the main thing, which is to be seen at the time of framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC, but in the instant case, no deadly weapon has been recovered from the possession of petitioners. Victim persons only sustained simple injuries, therefore, prima facie petitioners' intention to kill the victim persons is not established.
12. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the documents placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court has erred in framing charge punishable under Sections 326, 307 and 307/34 of IPC against the petitioners, as the injuries are not grievous in nature and the opinion of the Doctor does not give any impression that the injury inflicted on the skull of the victim person was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death, however, with respect to other offences, charges framed against the petitioners, would suffice has to be observed. At the stage of framing of charges, an elaborate inquiry into truthfulness of the case cannot be done.
13. Except charge under Sections 326, 307 and 307/34 of IPC, so far as the other charges are concerned, in view of the evidence available in the charge-sheet, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 7/17/2025 5:29:29 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14342 5 CRR-3767-2023 the same does not require any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
14. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed and charges framed against the petitioners under Sections 326, 307 and 307/149 of IPC are hereby set aside. Impugned order dated 17.07.2023 is modified to the extent that the offences prima facie made out against the petitioners are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, therefore, the Sessions Court is directed to remand the matter to the concerned JMFC.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Sessions Court for information and necessary compliance.
16. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Abhi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 7/17/2025 5:29:29 AM