Mohammed Raja & Ors vs State Of M.P

Subodh Abhyankar, J

This order shall also govern the disposal of Cri.Rev.Nos.2479/2021, 2480/2021 and 2481/2021, as these revisions are arising out of the same crime No.79/2021, registered at police station Nagda and arising out of the order dated 3.8.2021, passed in S.T.No.26/2021 by ASJ, Nagda, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 307/149, 323/149 (4 counts), 147, 148, 294 and 506 (II) of IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that on 18.2.2021, the FIR was lodged by complainant Abas Ali, at around 10.28 PM in the night, alleging that at around 8.00 PM in the same night, he and other persons of his community were having a meeting with regard to the illegal possession of Madarsa by the petitioners. At that time, the petitioners came armed with lathi, sword, knifes, Darata and belt and abused them and started assaulting them and ran away from the spot with the threat of further dire consequences.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence and so far as Section 307 of IPC is concerned, it was totally unwarranted and ought not to have been framed, looking to the injuries suffered by the injured persons as Munna and Abas Ali have received head injury and other persons had received simple injuries only. Counsel has submitted that so far as Munna is concerned, his injury is lacerated over occipital region approximately 2 x 0.5 cm and Munna in his statement has attributed the said injury to Aslam who was armed with stick only. The other injured Abas Ali also suffered a head injury in the form of laceration on the occipital region admeasuring .5 x 1 cm. Counsel has submitted that a counter case has also been registered against the complainant party at crime No.80/2021. It is further submitted that initially a case was registered under Sections 321, 147, 148, 149, 294 and 506 of IPC only and injuries suffered by Abas Ali was also said to be simple in nature. Abas Ali was also admitted in civil hospital, Ujjain, but he was also discharged within two days time and had suffered no bony injury and along with charge sheet also no such medical documents of Abas Ali have been placed on record to suggest that he suffered any grievous injury, as there is no query report. Thus it is submitted that the report appears to be concocted.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the prayer to allow the revisions and submits that no case for interference is made out, as the doctor has clearly opined that at the time of treatment Abas Ali condition was deteriorating and hence, he was referred to district hospital, Ujjain and in the query report it has been mentioned that in case of lack of proper medical attention, the injuries could have been fatal.

Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ananta Kathod Pawar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 11 SCC 564 and submitted that the accused persons would liable for their individual acts if specific evidence led by the prosecution in that regard where the fight is said to be sudden free fight between two groups of members.

On due consideration of the submissions and perusal of the record, as also the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananta Kathod Pawar (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners would be well suited in their defence at the time of evidence is led by the parties and thus at this juncture, it is difficult to hold that the intention of the petitioners was not of committing the murder. It may be that initially the FIR was lodged under minor sections, but that in itself would not be a reason to quash the charge under Section 307 of IPC. So far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananta Kathod Pawar (supra) is concerned, it has been so rendered after both the parties have led the evidence in support of their claim and thus while appreciating the evidence the Apex Court has held as under :-

"5...............Once the trial Court found that there was a sudden and free fight between the two groups in which members of both the groups sustained injuries, the trial court should have held that there was no scope for convicting members of one of those groups under Section 147 or 148 of IPC and for that matter for substantive offences with the aid of Section 149 of IPC."

Thus, it also affirms the finding of this Court that it is not the proper stage to come to a final conclusion regarding the culpability of the accused persons under a particular Section.

In view of the same, the petitions being devoid of merit and stand dismissed.

However, the liberty to the petitioners is granted to raise all the grounds available to them during the course of trial at appropriate stage.