Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhaisahab Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 3 April, 2017

Author: S.K.Awasthi

Bench: S.K.Awasthi

                                -( 1 )-
                                                  Cr.R.No.1112/2015

         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      BENCH AT GWALIOR
                           SINGLE BENCH
             BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
               Criminal Revision No.1112/2015
                    Bhaisahab Yadav & Others
                                   Versus
                         The State of M.P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri     Shailendra         Singh,        learned     counsel       for    the
applicants.
Shri Mohammad Irshad, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ORDER

(03.04.2017) The applicant has preferred this revision feeling aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2015 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, District Ashoknagar in Sessions Case No.65/2015, whereby the charges under Section 341, 294, 506 and 329 read with Section 34 of IPC have been framed against the applicants.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 06.05.2015 complainant Rajaram Singh Yadav while travelling from Village Kudai to Ashoknagar by motorcycle was stopped by the applicants who demanded Rs.5000/- for damages alleged to have been caused by the

-( 2 )-

complainant and used filthy languages to the complainant. When the complainant refused to pay the requisite amount then the applicants caused injuries to the complainant by means of lathi and knife by which he sustained grievous injuries and while going the applicants gave threat to the complainant of dire consequences.

3. The FIR was lodged at the instance of the complainant and after investigation, the charge- sheet was filed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 325, 327, 341, 506 B and 34 of IPC.

4. The trial Court on perusal of the charge sheet concluded that the material available on record is enough for framing the charges punishable under Sections 294, 341, 329 read with Section 34 and 506 of IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the applicants have preferred this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants were not named in the FIR. No Test Identification Parade was conducted during the investigation. It was mentioned in the F.I.R. that the applicants caused injuries on the head by means of knife but as per medical report, no incised wound was found on the head of the complainant. The complainant alleged that the applicant No.3 Raja Singh Yadav blamed him

-( 3 )-

that he was removed from the service of fair price shop due to his complaint and by this act he caused him loss of Rs.5000/- per month but this act cannot fall within the ambit of Section 329 of IPC. Therefore, no offence is made out against the applicants and the trial Court has wrongly framed the charges.

6. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submits that statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. clearly makes out the charges against the applicants. Accordingly, he submitted that the revision petition is merit- less and deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

8. From the perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the names of the applicants Raja Singh and Bhagwat Singh Yadav find place in the F.I.R.. Although the name of the applicant No.1 Bhaisahab Yadav is not mentioned in the F.I.R., but witness Indrabhan Singh Yadav stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that when he reached the spot, he saw that the applicants Raja Singh, Bhagwat Singh and Bhaisahab Yadav were assaulting the complainant, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence available on record to implicate the applicant No.1 Bhaisahab Yadav in

-( 4 )-

the present crime.

9. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it is apt to quote Section 329 of IPC which reads as under:-

329. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act.- Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer any property or valuable security, or of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in such sufferer to do anything that is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

10. From perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the applicants caused the injuries to complainant by means of lathi by which he received injuries on right hand, waist and the head. Although in the M.L.C. report, no injury was found on the waist, but the complainant sustained lacerated wound on his skull and contusion with swelling on right forearm. From the perusal of the report of X-ray, it is clear that injured Rajaram Singh sustained fracture in his right radius and ulna bone and it is sufficient for framing of charge under Section 329 of IPC against the applicants. In this regard, it would be appropriate to point

-( 5 )-

out the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in which the scope of consideration at this stage of framing of charges has been highlighted in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, wherein following observation has been made as under :-

25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76). "

11. Taking view of this matter, the revision petition being devoid of merits is dismissed and the trial Court is directed to continue the trial against the applicants in accordance with law.

                                     (S.K.Awasthi)
AK/-                                     Judge