Bhagwan Lal vs State of M.P.

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ''the Code'') challenging the order dated 03-07-2013 passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 40/2013 whereby charge has been framed u/s 307 part II and in alternate the charge u/s 307 Part-II read with Section 34 and 447 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).

The limited prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the charge u/s 307 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners in relation to injuries caused to the victim Brijesh, therefore, petitioners may be discharged from the aforesaid charge, however, he fairly conceded that instead thereof the charge u/s 325 of IPC may be framed against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not make any submission for discharge of petitioners from the charge u/s 447 of IPC framed by the trial Court.

On bare perusal of record, it is apparent that on 13-09-2012 at 9 am on the field of victim Brijesh, Brijesh was assaulted by Kulhadi and Lohangi resultantly various injuries were inflicted on the body of victim Brijesh. On the basis of Dehati Nalisi crime No. 226/2012 has been registered at Police Station Bairad District Shivpuri. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and thereafter the charges u/s 307 Part II or 307/34 and 447 of IPC have been framed against the petitioners.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, medical report of injured has been perused.

On perusal of medical report, it is clear that as many as seven injuries were caused. All the injuries were simple in nature except one injury that is fracture distal phalanx of thumb. Certainly this injury was grievous in nature. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Not a single injury has been caused at vital part of the body. It has not been opined by the doctor that the injuries caused to the injured were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. It is also pertinent to mention that after perusal of medical report of victim, it reveals that he was admitted in hospital on 14-09-2012 and discharged on 15-09-2012 meaning thereby he was hospitalized only for a day for treatment. From the perusal of record, it is also clear that even after availability of opportunity, petitioners have not caused any injury which was sufficient to cause death.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of the Court, prima facie there was no ground to frame the charge u/s 307 part II or 307/34 of IPC, therefore, on the basis of aforesaid discussion by allowing this petition in part the charge of Section 307 part II or 307/34 of IPC framed against the petitioners is hereby set aside and learned trial Court is directed to frame the charge for the offence u/s 325 of IPC as the case may be against the petitioners in regard to injuries caused to the victim Brijesh. Up to this extent, the impugned order of framing of charge stands modified. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary compliance.