Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangal Singh & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 29 January, 2013
Author: U. C. Maheshwari
Bench: U. C. Maheshwari
1 Cr. R. 607/96
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.607/1996.
Mangal Singh and others
Versus.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
For the applicant : Shri Raj Kamal Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the respondent/ State : Shri Punit Shroti, P. L.
ORDER
(29.1.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.
1. The applicants/ accused have preferred this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 3.7.1996 passed by 2nd Additional Session Judge, Chhatarpur in S. T. No. 247/95, whereby the charge of Section 302/34 in alternate 305/34 of IPC have been framed against each of them.
2. As per copy of papers of the charge sheet available on the record on dated 19.3.1995 an information regarding unnatural death of Katta @ Natthu Khan, resident of Munderi was received at P. S. Laundi, District Chhatarpur from some hospital, on which an inquest intimation bearing No.7/95 was registered. In its inquiry on establishing the offence against the applicants herein, the FIR was registered against them for the offence of Section 304/34 of IPC. After holding investigation on completion of the same the applicants were charge sheeted for the offence of 302 of IPC.
3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court on evaluation of the charge sheet taking into consideration the available evidence collected by the investigating agency the charge of Section 302/34 in alternate 305/34 of IPC have been framed against each of the applicants. Being dissatisfied with such order the applicants have come to this Court with this revision.
4. The applicants' counsel after taking me through the averments of the revision along with the papers of the charge sheet available on the record, so also the impugned order argued that on taking into consideration the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety the ingredients of the above mentioned offence are not made out to frame the alleged charge against the 2 Cr. R. 607/96 applicants. In such premises the trial Court has committed error in framing the same. In continuation he said that in any case it was not a case of Section 302/34 of IPC and such charge has been wrongly framed by the trial Court and prayed to discharged the applicants from the alleged charge by setting a side the impugned order and allowing this revision.
5. On the other hand responding the aforesaid arguments Shri Punit Shroti, learned P. L. by justifying the impugned order and charges framed against the applicants said that the same being based on proper evaluation of the papers of charge sheet is in conformity with law, it does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of this revision.
6. Having heard the counsel keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers available on the record along with the impugned order.
7. As per averments of the FIR and the story put forth by the prosecution under Section 173 of Cr. P. C. the deceased Katta @ Natthu Khan had died due to consuming of neat liquor which was made available by the applicants in connection of their illegal bet (Shart) and due to such alleged illegal bet of the applicants with the deceased under temptation of the same he consumed the neat liquor and died. On carrying out the autopsy it was found that the deceased has died because of consuming the poisonous substance. However, viscera was preserved and sent to FSL Sagar, from where the report dated 31.7.1995 was received, according to which, in his lungs, brain, kidney so also of his stomach and other article the Ethyl Alcohol was present. The Ethyl Alcohol some time is one of the poisonous substance. If the same is taken by any one or administered by other in more quantity, then it is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and as per evidence collected by the investigating agency such neat liquor of Ethyl Alcohol was made available to the deceased by the applicants and also instigated him to drink the same to fulfill some illegal bet. In such premises it could be assumed that either with intention to cause bodily injury to the deceased, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature such liquor was administered to the deceased by the applicants or in any case in connection of their bet liquor was made available to him and thereby he 3 Cr. R. 607/96 died and in such premises the applicants have committed the offence under Section 305 of IPC. It was known to the applicants that on taking such liquor by the deceased it being Ethyl Alcohol the poisonous substance the deceased Katta could have died in the ordinary course of nature. In such premises prima facie the applicants have committed the offence of culpable homicide defined under Section 299 of Cr. P. C. The same is read as under :
Section 299. Culpable homicide " Who ever 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."
8. After holding that the deceased had died because of homicidal death defined under the aforesaid section on considering the matter in the light of earlier part of Section 300 of IPC, then prima facie it falls under the clause (3) of the earlier part of Section 300 of IPC. The same is read as under :
Section 300 (3):
If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
9. In view of the aforesaid I am of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order and framing the above mentioned charges against the applicants. Pursuant to it, this petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.
10. It appears from the order sheet dated 20.12.1996 that further proceeding of the impugned Sessions Trial No.247/95 was stayed by this Court till further order. In view of dismissal of the revision such interim order staying further proceeding has also come to an end. In such premises, the applicants are directed to appear before the trial Court firstly on 5.3.2013 and also on such other dated as are fixed by such Court till disposal of the 4 Cr. R. 607/96 trial, failing which the trial Court shall be at liberty to call them in accordance with law for for holding the trial. Taking into consideration that the impugned Sessions Trial is pending since 1995, hence the trial Court is directed to take an endeavor to expedite the trial of the impugned case and concluded the same on or before 31st of August, 2013 under intimation to this court and if it is necessary then case should be tried on day to day basis till disposal of the same.
11. The revision is dismissed as indicated above.
(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge K.