Halkoi @ Halkaipatel vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally.

The applicants have challenged the order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No. 351/2013, whereby the charges for offence u/s 326 or 326/34 of IPC were framed against the applicants alongwith other charges.

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 22.5.2013, it was alleged against the applicants that they assaulted the victim Deependra by an axe. After registration of the case, Deependra was sent to the hospital and doctor who recorded the MLC report, mentioned that the injury caused to the victim Deependra was grievous in nature. Thereafter, the victim was admitted in the hospital for 5 day and thereafter, he was discharged.

After considering the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apparent that the doctor who recorded the MLC of the victim Deependra did not mention any reason as to how the injury was found grievous in nature. If any injury is to be called grievous injury then, it should fall within the purview of Section 320 of IPC. It is no where mentioned that the single incised wound caused to the victim Deependra was fatal in nature. The victim was admitted in the hospital for 5 days but, looking to the Bed Head Ticket, no surgery was done to the victim. It was not mentioned by the doctor that injury was caused on the vital part of the body of the victim and therefore, it cannot be said that injury caused to the victim was fatal in nature. Under such circumstances, injury of the victim Deependra does not fall within the purview of Section 320 (Part-8) of IPC and also it does not fall within the purview of Section 320 of IPC. Hence, it cannot be said that injury caused to the victim Deependra was grave.

Under such circumstances, it is established prima facie that the applicants had caused a simple injury to the victim by a sharp cutting weapon and therefore, charges of offence punishable u/s 324 or 324 read with Section 34 of IPC could be framed alongwith other charges but, charges of offence punishable u/s 326 or 326 read with Section 34 of IPC could not be framed.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in framing the charges for offence punishable under Sections 326 or 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and therefore, it is a fit case in which an interference is required from the side of this Court in the impugned order, by way of a revision.

Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant Halkoi @ Halkai Patel and Rambi Patel @ Devkuliyawali is hereby allowed. The order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby set aside. The applicants are discharged from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 326 or 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hear the learned counsel for the parties and frame the charges afresh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge may proceed u/s 228 of the Cr.P.C., if required.

Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.