Brijbhan Prasad and others vs Shivwati Patel & others

Being aggrieved by order dated 10.2.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District- Ujjain in S.T. No. 584/2015, whereby the learned Court has framed charge u/s 307 IPC against them, the petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 397of Cr.P.C.

Brief facts of the case are that, on 01.6.2015, at the time of the incident, the complainant was walking with his daughter and granddaughter and going towards bus stand Jharda. Suddenly the accused, who is son-in-law of the complainant, with his two elder brothers came there and assaulted him with intent to kill him. He struck Lathi (bamboo stick) on his head and other parts of his body. The complainant sustained injuries on several parts of the body including the head. He was admitted to the hospital and treated there. The doctor opined that if he would not have received treatment on time, then the injuries sustained by him might have been fatal for life. The police filed the charge-sheet and the learned trial court framed the charge u/s 307 IPC .

The petitioners have come before this Court stating that the complainant did not sustain any injury dangerous to life. He was discharged from the hospital only after two days of admission on 03.06.2016. The opinion of the doctor is only based on his presumptions and there is no solid ground for this presumption. The accused Kailash has lameness in lower limb and is handicapped by his left foot and cannot even walk normally. The accused Kamlesh is having a defect that all his fingers of both hands are joined permanently. Therefore, the allegations against both the accused that they have assaulted and attacked and caused injuries to the complainant are unbelievable. The police have not seized blood stained shirt instead have seized a blood stained pant. In case of injury caused on head the flow of blood will stained the shirt instead of the lower trouser. This fact also shows that the case of the complainant is false. The learner trial court has committed error in framing the charge under section 307 IPC. Therefore, quashment of the same is prayed for.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that the complainant has made certain allegations against the petitioners that they have assaulted and caused him injuries with intent to kill him. For framing the charge u/s 307 intention and not the impact is to be seen. On analyzing the evidence with this view, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any error in framing the charge as alleged. Learned. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the record.

The complainant has made a complaint alleging that the petitioners have assaulted him, beaten him by lathies on his head, abused him in a public place and threatened to kill him. The doctor has clearly opined that the injuries caused to the complainant might have been fatal for life if would have not been treated on time. In their statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C ., the witnesses have supported the allegations. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charge u/s 307 IPC, the intention of the assaulter is to be seen and not the result of the incident or the injuries sustained by the complainant. In the present case, the FIR lodged by the complainant and also his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C . coupled with the opinion of the doctor are prima facie are sufficient to frame the charge against the petitioner.

The petitioners have placed reliance on 2006 CrLR(M.P.) 202Vardichand Vs. Rameshwar & others 2008 Cr.L.R. (MP) 392 Vallabh @ Dinesh Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and order dated 01.04.2014 passed in CRR No. 316/2014 by coordinate bench of this court. But these all are clearly distinguishable on the facts and therefore not applicable in favour of the complainant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. I do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion used by the learned trial Court.

In view of the above, the present petition is devoid of merits, deserves to be and is dismissed hereby.