Daryav vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants by this revision have challenged the order dated 22.9.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Astha District Sehore in ST No. 231/2011 whereby the charge of offence u/s 307 /34 is framed against the applicants along with other charges.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 6.7.2011 the applicants assaulted the victim Lalji by various weapons. The victim sustained as many as eight injuries and he was referred to the District Hospital Sehore and thereafter he was referred to the Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the learned counsel for the applicants wants to establish that as per the allegation the applicants assaulted the victim Lalji by sticks and in the statement of the victim it is nowhere mentioned that the applicants assaulted him to kill him, whereas his injury was not fatal in nature.

However, in the FIR Jagannath, brother of the victim Lalji has stated that the applicants assaulted him to kill him. Secondly, it is true that there was no fracture found on the head of the victim, but if the bed head ticket of the District Hospital, Sehore is perused, then it would be apparent that the victim sustained fracture in the rib and due to that fracture a damage was caused to his lung. It is apparent from the facts and evidence, specially the medical evidence that the victim was assaulted in a brutal manner. He sustained as many as eight injuries though no fracture was found on his head, but his injury caused in the chest could be fatal in nature, and therefore at this stage where appreciation of evidence is not to be done, it cannot be said that the victim did not sustain any fatal injury or applicants were not intended to kill him. Under such circumstances, the charge u/s 307 of IPC was required to be framed because such offence is constituted.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicants cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed.

An attention of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is invited to the fact that no main charge of the offence u/s 307 of IPC is framed, and therefore the main charge u/s 307 of IPC as well as alternate charge u/s 307 /34 is required to be framed in the case. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.