Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjit Alias Dalchand Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 2019
1
CRR-328-2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRR-328-2018
Arjit @ Dalchand Sahu
versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Priyank Choubey, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Shri R.P. Prajapati, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(14.03.2019) Applicant filed this revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.183/2013 by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Board, Sagar, whereby learned Board has stated the particulars of the offences against the applicant in connection with the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The case of the prosecution was that at the time of incident the applicant was juvenile in conflict with law. Victim Guddan @ Shubham Kori took Rs.20,000/- as loan from the applicant. He returned 2 CRR-328-2018 Rs.16,000/- only and only Rs.4,000/- remained to be paid. Accused asked for remaining Rs.4,000/- on that victim assured him to return the said amount, however he did not return. On 20.05.2017, accused went to house of the victim and took victim near the Gadheri Pull and asked for remaining Rs.4,000/- then victim said that he will pay the amount within two months. Accused took out knife and assaulted the victim by knife on his chest. Victim fell down and accused fled away from the spot. Brother of Guddan namely Dinesh Kori on receiving information reached at the spot and one Arun Raikwar along with Vikki reached the spot. Dinesh took the victim to the hospital, therefrom the victim referred to main hospital at Sagar. Vikki @ Vikram Kori informed to the Police Station, Garha Kota. Crime No.248/2017 for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. has been registered against the applicant. During investigation, it was found that victim was the member of the Scheduled Castes. After investigation, charge-sheet under Section 307 of the I.P.C. r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the SC ST Act was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board after hearing both the parties, stated the particulars of offence against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the SC ST Act vide order dated 13.12.2017.
3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2017, the applicant filed this revision before this Court on the ground that learned 3 CRR-328-2018 Juvenile Justice Board did not considered the material on record properly. Medical Report does not reveal that injuries caused to the victim was dangerous to life. In MLC report, Doctor opined that injuries caused by hard and blunt object means it did not caused by knife. If that was caused by knife, there would be incised wound. If considering the total material on record, only offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. could be made out. Whereas, learned trial Court framed charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C., committed material irregularities. Therefore, prays for quashing of charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C.
4. Learned Government Advocate submits that there is ample material on record. The victim stated that applicant inflicted injuries by means of knife in the chest. He fell down on spot and thereafter accused fled away from the spot. Dinesh Kori and Vikram Kori stated that victim narrated the story to them and they took the victim to hospital for treatment from where he was referred to Sagar Hospital for further better treatment. Learned Juvenile Justice Board properly stated particulars of the offences and not committed any irregularities and illegalities, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision.
5. Heard, the learned counsel for the parties. Peruse the documents filed along with the revision and case diary of Crime No.248/2017 of Police Station, Garha Kota, Sagar. Perused statements of the Vikki @ Vikram Kori, Dinesh Kori, Laxmi Kori, Arun 4 CRR-328-2018 Kori and victim Guddan @ Shubham Kori. Victim stated that applicant took him on motorcycle below the Gadheri Pull, where he demanded Rs.4,000/- and suddenly inflicted injuries by means of knife with an intention to kill him, on the left side of his chest, blood was oozing. Thereafter accused threatened him if he narrated the incident, he would not leave him alive but one Bittu Khateek intervened and and Dinesh Kori reached at the spot. Thereafter, Dinesh and Bittu took the victim in the hospital.
6. There is sufficient evidence on the record that accused took the victim below the Gadheri Pull, where he inflicted injuries on the person of the victim. MLC report supported that victim received injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that looking to the nature of the injuries, it is simple in nature and not caused by a sharp weapon i.e. knife. If all the evidence taken into consideration, it would reveal that injuries are simple in nature. Therefore, no ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is made out. Learned counsel for the applicant prays that if there is any offence committed by the applicant, the same does not so grave, therefore, his act is not prima facie covers under the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C.
7. Learned counsel is not praying for discharging the applicant. He orally submitted that more or less the act of the applicant comes under the purview of Section 323 of the I.P.C.
5 CRR-328-2018
8. Considering the submissions and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, if the prayer of the applicant is that on the basis of material collected during investigation the ingredients of minor offence is made out and on that basis applicant has filed this criminal revision praying that charge for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not made out, charge of offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. is made out. This kind of prayer, if considered, comes under the purview of interlocutory order and if there is an interlocutory order, Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. comes into picture and a revision under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as per decision of this Court in Khagesh Kumar Goel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (1998) CRI.L.J. 776.
9. Apart from this, learned trial Court conducted the trial as a Summon Trial and procedure for that contemplated under the Chapter 20 of the Cr.P.C. Substance of the accusation stated against the applicant under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. Applicants plea recorded on that, he denied for commission of the offence. In Chapter 20 of the Cr.P.C. from Section 251 to 259 nowhere it is mentioned that Court will hear the argument before the charge and Court is empowered to discharge the applicant during trial of Summon cases. In this regard, there is no provision of discharging the applicant under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. After considering the 6 CRR-328-2018 material at length, this Court does not find that on the basis of such type of grounds taken in this petition, this revision is not maintainable.
10. Hence, petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge vinay Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2019.03.14 17:02:49 +05'30'