Anwar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The applicants are aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha (MP), in Sessions Trial No.202/2014, whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the present applicants for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341/149, 294, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 307/149 and Section 506 (Part-2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ''IPC'').

The story of the prosecution is that on 9 t h March, 2014 the applicants met with complainant Vinod at a marriage function whereafter all of them went together to consume liquor. On some issue heated conversations started amongst them and at that stage, the complainant left the place. However, while on the way to home, he was wrongly restrained by the applicants and several injuries were inflicted on him including a blow on the skull as well as fracture in the leg. Thereafter, the matter -( 2 )- Cr.R.No.313/2015 was reported to the police leading to registration of F.I.R. for commission of offences publishable under Sections 341, 294, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The police investigated into the matter and after investigation filed chargesheet for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 325 read with Section 149, 341, 506 and 307 of IPC.

The trial Court after going through the chargesheet proceeded to frame the charges for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341/149, 294, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 307/149 and Section 506 (Part-2) of IPC.

According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the trial Court erred in framing the charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC as the reply submitted by the doctor to the query of police regarding the nature of injury, clearly shows that the same was not life threatening and the statements recorded by the police clearly show that, the incident occurred due to heated conversation between the applicants and the complainant. Therefore, no intention to commit murder can be attributed to the applicants.

On the contrary, the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the head injury sustained by the complainant establishes the intention and thus, no error has been committed by the trial Court.

I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the documents brought on record.

The opinion about the nature of injury by the doctor is germane for adjudicating the matter. For framing the charge for commission of offence punishable -( 3 )- Cr.R.No.313/2015 under Section 307 of IPC, it is imperative to attribute prima facie intention to commit murder, whereas on the basis of the sequence of events involved in the case and the statements filed alongwith the chargesheet, it cannot be said that the applicants had any such intention, because the applicants had not repeated blow on the head, though they might have done so. Apart from it, the doctor has also concluded the injury not to be life threatening. Further, the injuries were caused by lathi and therefore, the charge under Section 325 of IPC is just and prope

In view of the above, the instant revision is partly allowed only to the extent of framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC. The applicants/accused are accordingly discharged from the offence under Section 307 of IPC. It is, however, made clear that the trial against the applicants/accused shall continue for other charges except the charge under Section 307 of IPC without being influenced by any observation made herein above.