Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pop Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2016
CRR-1497-2016
(POP SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
30-11-2016
Shri Dharmenra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission .
This is a revision petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short âThe Codeâ) challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 15.9.2016 passed by learned 3 rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T.No.416/2016, whereby charge under Sections 148, 341, 294, 307/149, 323/149 (two counts) of IPC and additional charge against applicant No.2 Amrit under Section 25(1-B)(B) of Arms Act has been framed against the applicants.
Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that on 27.5.2016 Hakam Singh lodged report in the P.S., Nanakheda averting that on 27.5.2016 at about 9.00 PM when he came from Panth Piplai to his house situated at village Nanakheda he found applicants Pop Singh armed with Tomy, Amrit and Mithun armed with sword, Kamal armed with Lathi and Chhotiya armed with sword standing nearby his house. They abused him and beated with an intention to kill him. He got hurt on head, left hand and back. They also threatened if they would see him again kill him. On the report in P.S., Nanakheda Crime No.264/2016 was registered and after investigation challan was filed. After hearing the applicants the trial Court framed the charges against the applicants as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the charge under Section 307/149 IPC applicants have filed this revision.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that to frame the charge under Section 307 of IPC it should appear from the evidence that applicant inflicted injury to Hakam Singh with an intention to cause death but according to MLC report injury sustained by Hakam Singh is simple in nature and Doctor also opined that the injuries sustained by Kakam Singh are not dangerous to life, therefore, provision of Section 307 of IPC do not attract. Learned trial Court committed mistake in framing charge against the applicants under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer, supports the impugned order and prays for rejection of the revision. Although according to MLC report Hakam Singh injury is not grievous or dangerous to life. But For framing of charge under Section 307 IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Balram Bama Patil and others, reported in 1983 Cri.L.J.331 has held that to justify a conviction under Section 307 of IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Kashiram, reported in ILR (2009) MP 1552 (SC) also held that to justify conviction under Section 307 of IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. It is clearly mentioned in the FIR that accused inflicted injury with an intention to kill Hakam Singh. It is clear from MLC report that Hakam Singh sustained two injuries on his head, which is on vital part of the body. He was admitted in hospital from 27.5.2016 to 2.6.2016. In the case diary statement of Hakam Singh it is also mentioned that applicants inflicted injuries on him with knife and sword with an intention to kill him. So this version coupled with the injury is prima facie sufficient to frame charge against the applicants/accused under Section 307 of IPC. Learned Addl.Sessions Judge did not commit any mistake to frame the charges against applicant-accused under section 307 IPC. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is devoid of merit, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge is directed to proceed in accordance with law expeditiously.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE