Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra @ Chhuttali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2016
Author: S.K.Awasthi
Bench: S.K.Awasthi
-( 1 )- CRR.No.995/2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No.995/2014
Mahendra @ Chhuttali & Another
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Chitra Saxena, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant
No.1/State.
Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the non-applicants No.2
and 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(22.12.2016) This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 03.12.2014 passed by the X Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.704/2014, whereby the charge under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short 'IPC') has been framed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.2014 at about 09:15 PM complainant Bhart Singh and his brother Pratap Singh were filling the water from Hand Pump. At that time, accused Krishna Kushwah and Mahendra alias Chhuttali came and started abusing them, due to the previous enmity then Pratap Singh resisted. After that accused threw him and accused Krishna Kushwah threw a big stone on his nose as a result, his nose started bleeding. The matter was reported to the police station, -( 2 )- CRR.No.995/2014 Purani Chhawani, where the case was registered at crime no.161/14 under Sections 294, 323 & 506B/34 of IPC. Injured Pratap Singh sustained fracture in nasal bone, therefore, offence under Section 326 IPC is also added. After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
3. The trial Court has framed the charges against the applicants/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506B and 326/34 of IPC. Being aggrieved with the charge framed under Section 326 IPC, this revision application has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that injured Pratap Singh has not sustained any injury by sharp cutting object. The injury caused by stone which was not treated as a dangerous weapon to attract Section 326 IPC. Therefore, there is no material on record for framing the charge against the applicants for the aforesaid offence.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State supported the impugned order.
6. "Grievous hurt" has been defined in Section 320 IPC, which reads as under :-
"320. Grievous hurt.- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as 'grievous':
First.- Emasculation.
Secondly.- Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly.- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
Fourthly.- Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly.- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly.- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.-( 3 )- CRR.No.995/2014
Seventhly.- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly.- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
7. The residual question is whether the factual position of the case indicates that any grievous hurt was caused. As per the MLC report, injured Pratap Singh sustained following injuries :
1. Red contusion over the nose 3x2 cm vertically. Blood stain in nostrils advised X-ray of nasal spur.
2. Red contusion dorsal right hand 6x3 cm transversely X-ray of right hand.
3. Abrasion over anterior left leg below the left knee 1x1 cm.
As per X-ray report, fracture was found on nasal bone.
8. The essential ingredients to attract Section 326 IPC are :-
(1). Voluntarily causing a hurt; (2). Hurt caused must be a grievous hurt; (3). The grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or means.
9. In the case of Mathai v. State of Kerala reported in (2005) 3 SCC 260 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would be relevant to note that in some provisions e.g. Sections 324 and 326, the expression "dangerous weapon" is used. The facts involved in a particular case, depending upon various factors like size, sharpness, -( 4 )- CRR.No.995/2014 would throw light on the question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not. That would determine whether in the case, Section 325 or Section 326 would be applicable.
10. In the instant case, as per seizure memo, the stone which was seized as a weapon of offence, is of one balist x one balist and 3 angul in dimension, and is also described as a piece of Patia. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that stone was thrown upon injured Pratap Singh when he was lying on ground.
11. The question whether the weapon used in the incident may be treated as a dangerous weapon or not will be determined after recording of the evidence. Therefore in considered opinion of this court, the trial court has not committed any error in framing charge under Section 326 of IPC against the applicants.
12. In the result, the revision sans substance and is hereby dismissed.
(S.K.Awasthi) Judge AK/-