Lachhiram vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The applicants/accused have preferred this criminal revision under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.19/2016 framing charges against each of them for the offences under Sections 147/149, 148/149, 307/149 (Two count), 323/149, 294 (Three count) & 506 Part-2 (Three count) of the Indian Penal Code (in short ''IPC'').

Brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.2015 complainant Jagdish lodged a complaint at Police Station Deepnakheda contending that at 11:00 AM Jagdish (complainant), Bhura alias Santram and Sumant were loading their trolley with Soyabeen straw. Accused Khuman Singh was breaking the fencing of the agricultural field belonging to the complainant and when the complainant asked the accused as to why he is breaking the fencing, the accused persons started hurling abuses. Thereafter, accused Munna alias Bharat assaulted Bhura and Jagdish by Axe and accused Pappu assaulted Santram by Axe on his head and elbow. Accused Khuman, Harnath, Omkar and Balveer assaulted by Lathi. On the basis of the complaint, an F.I.R. was registered against the applicants at Crime No.107/2015. Injured Sumant, Bhura and Jagdish were medically examined and they were further referred for X-ray examination at People''s Hospital, Bhopal. As per X-ray report, it was found that the injured Jagdish is having fracture in the index finger and Bhura is having compound fracture in ulna bone. After the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet before the competent court.

On the basis of chargesheet, charges under Sections 147/149, 148/149, 307/149 (Two Counts), 323/149, 294 (Three Counts) and 506 (Part-2) (Three Counts) of IPC were framed.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned order is manifestly illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law, facts and evidence. None of the injured has received any fracture on the head or on any vital part of the body, due to which death could have been caused. In the C.T. Scan report of the injured Jagdish, no abnormality has been found. The injured Jagdish and Bhura have only received fractures on index finger and compound fracture of ulna bone which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be dangerous to life. There is no medical opinion available on record by which it can be gathered that the injuries sustained on the head were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, no case under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order of framing charge under Section 307 of IPC.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2/ Injured Jagdish Yadav by justifying the impugned order stated that the same being based on proper appreciation of chargesheet is in accordance with law and the prescribed procedure. Thus, this same does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the parties and have perused the copy of the charge-sheet brought on record.

A careful consideration of FIR and statements recorded by the Police along with the medical reports filed with the charge-sheet reveals that the intention to commit murder cannot be attributed to the applicants as even after allegedly equipped with the dangerous weapon, no fatal injury on the body of the injured persons has been recorded by the doctor and as per x-ray report, fracture in the index finger of complainant Jagdish and compound fracture in ulna bone of Bhura has been found. At this juncture, it can safely be observed that the injury caused to complainant Jagdish on his head is not found vital because as per x-ray report, no fracture has been detected. Thus, on the cumulative consideration of these circumstances, it can be concluded that the trial court has committed an error in framing the charge under Section 307 of IPC.

Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed and the charge framed by the trial court against the applicants under Section 307 of IPC is hereby set aside. However, the trial court shall proceed to relegate the matter to the Court of JMFC as the charges for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 325, 325/149 (Two counts), 323, 323/149 & 506 Part-2 of IPC against the applicants are triable by JMFC.

Consequently, the order dated 04.05.2016 is set- aside to the extent it relates to framing of charge for commission of offence order Section 307 of IPC against all the applicants.

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