Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Jharia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2021
Author: Arun Kumar Sharma
Bench: Arun Kumar Sharma
1 CRR-4951-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRR No. 4951 of 2018
(SANJAY JHARIA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 06-12-2021
Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri
Mayank Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Vibha Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
The applicant has preferred this revision petition for setting aside the order dated 20/09/2018 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No. 194/2018, whereby charge has been framed for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC against the applicant.
The prosecution story in brief is that on 19/07/2017, deceased Yadunandan Jhariya lodged an FIR No. 546 at Police Station Kotwali Narsinghpur for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC against the applicant alleging that applicant assaulted him by kicks and fists, due to which, he sustained injuries. Thereafter, more than four months of the alleged incident, on 06/12/2017, deceased died of massive heart attack. After due investigation, ultimately charge-sheet under Section 304 of the IPC was filed in the competent court of jurisdiction.
Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence available on record to show that the applicant had any intention or knowledge for causing death of the deceased. It is also submitted that the alleged incident had taken place on 19/07/2017; whereas the deceased died on 06/12/2017 i.e. after more than four 2 CRR-4951-2018 months of the alleged incident, due to massive heart attack. It is further submitted that there is no medical report available on record to indicate the the deceased died as a result of injuries caused by the applicant. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to substantiate the fact that the applicant had committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is further submitted that the trial Court has framed the charge under Section 304 of the IPC against the applicant merely on the basis of assumption and presumption. The statements recorded under Section 173 (5) of Cr.P.C. ought not to have been accepted as they do not indicate prima facie material to frame charge as aforesaid and at the stage of framing of charge, it is the duty of the court concerned to see whether the documents submitted along with the charge-sheet satisfy the necessary ingredients of the offence so alleged or to be charged against the accused. It is further submitted that if the material is not there and if unrebutted it would not be possible to convict the accused, then charge ought not to be framed. Learned trial Judge framed charge without appreciating the material on record and this has resulted in great prejudice and in justice to the applicant.
The learned Senior counsel for the applicant, referring to Section 299 of the IPC, which defines 'Culpable Homicide' and inviting the attention of this Court to the statement of deceased wife recorded during investigation, has submitted that this witness has not stated that the applicant had an intention to cause death of the deceased or that he, intentionally, caused a bodily injury to the deceased which was likely to cause death. It is further submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner did any act knowingly that by 3 CRR-4951-2018 such act, he was likely to cause death of the deceased. The contention is that from the material filed along with the charge-sheet, it cannot even prima-facie be said that the necessary ingredients to constitute 'Culpable Homicide', as defined under Section 299 of IPC are not made out, therefore, the applicnt deserves to be discharged for charge under Section 304 of IPC.
Section 299 which defines culpable homicide runs as under:
299. Culpable homicide.- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide."
Under these circumstances, learned Senior counsel prays for setting aside of the impugned order.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer by contending that at the stage of framing of charge, detailed appreciation of the evidence is not permissible, therefore, at this stage no case for setting aside of the impugned order is made out.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record coupled with the fact that there is no medical documents available on record to show that the applicant died as a consequence of injuries caused by the applicant nor the applicant caused a bodily injury to the deceased which was likely to cause death. In the considered opinion of this Court, prima-facie, a charge for offence under Section 304 of IPC is not made out against the applicant. The learned trial Court has not taken the aforesaid aspects into consideration while framing the charge, therefore, the 4 CRR-4951-2018 impugned order cannot be sustained.
As a fall out of the above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is discharged with regard to offence under Section 304 IPC. The learned trial Court will further examine as to what charge(s) is made against the applicant and will proceed, accordingly.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE skt Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2021.12.08 11:30:04 IST