Pradeep Sahu vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C. the applicants have challenged the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No. 490/2013 whereby the charges of offence punishable u/s 307 or 307/149 of IPC were framed against the applicants along with other charges.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.4.2013 at about 10:15 PM the applicants surrounded the victim Mukul Pandey. The applicant Pradeep Sahu assaulted him by a sword on his head, whereas the applicant Sonu assaulted by baseball bat causing injury on his left eye. The remaining applicants assaulted him by the base of a revolver on his head and some other persons assaulted the victim by kicks and fists. Initially the case was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506B, 324 and 341 of IPC whereas the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506B, 324, 341, 307 and 201 of IPC.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is admitted by both the parties that no fatal or grave injury was caused to the victim Mukul Pandey. The learned counsel for the objector has raised an objection mainly that for constitution of offence u/s 307 of IPC, intention of the accused should be seen. He has placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Sagayam Vs. State of Karnataka, .

The learned counsel for the State has concentrated on the facts of the case and also the fact that there was a criminal past against the applicants.

On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at present it is to be seen as to whether prima facie the applicants had an intention to kill the victim Mukul Pandey or not. For framing of the charges, no defence evidence is to be considered and it is the golden yardstick that if the evidence collected by the prosecution is considered and the accused can be convicted for the any offence and if no rebuttal evidence is produced, then charge of that offence shall be framed. In the present case, it would be apparent that there is no allegation against the applicants that they took any contract from anyone to kill the victim Mukul Pandey, and therefore due to their criminal past, no effect would be caused in assessment as to whether a charge u/s 307 of IPC can be framed or not.

It is alleged against the applicant Pradeep Sahu that he assaulted the victim by a sword and the victim could save himself, therefore he assaulted by a sword on second time causing a simple injury on his head. It is true that applicant Pradeep Sahu tried to assault the victim for second times, but it is also apparent that there was no forceful assault caused by the applicant Pradeep Sahu on the head of the victim otherwise if he was intended to kill the victim, then forceful assault of sword could be caused on the neck of the victim and he would have died, but simply injury was caused on his head. The victim himself lodged an FIR (Dehati Nalishi) within 2-3 hours of the incident, which indicates that the applicant Pradeep Sahu did not cause any fatal or grave injury to the victim. If he intended to kill the victim, then he could have given one more assault on the vital party of the body by a forceful manner. It is alleged in the FIR that applicant Sonu assaulted by baseball bat on the left eye of the victim but no such corresponding injury was found. It was found that by baseball bat the victim sustained an injury in his hand, but no fracture was caused in the hand. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the applicant Sonu was not interested to kill the victim. It is alleged that one of the culprits had a firearm but it is alleged in the FIR that no fire was done from the firearm. The victim was assaulted by base of the firearm.

If the applicants were interested to kill the victim, then certainly they could use firearm and gun shot injury could have caused to the victim. As submitted by the learned counsel for the State, the witnesses Ramakant and Ravindra have stated that the applicants fired from the gun, but such statements were given one month after the incident. If fire was done by firearm, then the victim could mention this fact in the FIR, and therefore the story told by the witnesses Ramakant and Ravindra that fire was done by the applicants cannot be accepted in the light of the FIR lodged by the victim. Under such circumstances, if the entire conduct of the applicants is seen, then Sonu did not assault for second time, whereas his first assault was not in forceful manner and no fracture was caused in the hand of the victim. The assault of the applicant Pradeep was not forceful, therefore no fatal or grave injury was found to the victim. When one injury was caused in the head of the victim, applicant Pradeep Sahu did not assault for second time. Similarly, the remaining applicants assaulted the victim causing simply injury. They had a firearm but no fire was done, and therefore by examining the entire evidence collected by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the applicants were intended to kill the victim. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Sagayam (supra), it would be apparent that no ingredient of Section 300 of IPC was attracted in the present case. Hence, prima facie no charge u/s 307 of IPC could be framed against any of the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 149 of IPC.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicants can be accepted. Hence it is hereby accepted. The impugned order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No. 490/13 is hereby set aside. The applicants are discharged from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 307 or 307/149 of IPC.

The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to hear the learned counsel for the parties for framing of charges and to frame the charges a fresh. The trial Court may proceed u/s 228 of Cr.P.C. if required. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.