Raja and others vs State of M.P.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27-12-2004 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T. No. 281/04 whereby the direction for framing the charges against applicants Nos. 1,3 and 4 under sections 452, 307/34 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and against applicant No. 2 under sections 452, 307 and 323 of Indian Penal Code has been given and in pursuance of this order the abovesaid charges are framed against them.

The prosecution story in brief is that on 16-5-2004 at about 7.30 p.m. when complainant Hari Singh Yadav, his mother Ramwati, Father Ramsingh and other family members were at their residence at Chandrapur, P. S. Hoshangabad, at the same time present applicants along with axe came there and by using filthy language and abusing them abruptly entered in the home of the complainant and started to destroy household goods and in continuation of it complainant Ramsingh was attacked by axe on his head by applicant Raja, due to this injury bleeding was started and other applicants had also beaten to the complainant Ramsingh and his family members by feet and fist and as per FIR complainant Cri. Rev. No. 150 of 2005 decided on 4-2-2005. (Jabalpur) and his father were attacked with the intention to cause death, not only he got injuries but other family members had also got some injuries. Incident was reported to police, who registering offence and injured persons were sent to Hospital where they medically examined and as per M.L.C. report one injury was found over the head of Ramsingh which is vital part of the body. As alleged this injury was caused by axe and further fracture in the ribs towards left side of Ramsingh was also found. Besides these injuries some other injuries was also found on his body. Apart from this his other family members were also medically examined and injuries were found on them. By holding investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after considering the circumstances on challan papers the abovesaid charges framed. Hence this revision.

Counsel of the applicant submitted that as per contention made in the FIR and the M.L.C. report no ingredients of offence u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code are made out. As per his submission in the M.L.C. report only one simple injury was found on the head of complainant Ramsingh and fracture was found in the ribs and other injuries of Ramsingh and other persons are simple in nature, and therefore, the offence of section 325 or 323 of the Indian Penal Code is/are made out and the same is triable by the Judicial Magistrate and not by the Sessions Court. In support of his contention he placed reliance in a reported case 2000 (1) M.P.W.N. 116, Shiv Narayan v. State of M.P. but this cited case does not give any strength to the applicant because the said case was decided after recording the evidence and concluded the trial, which is not the position in the case at hand. His further reliance was 1999 (2) M.P. W.N. 131, Pappu v. State of M.P., in which the charge was converted from sections 307 to 326 of Indian Penal Code but in that case the intention and circumstances were not suggesting attempt to murder of concerning complainant, and therefore, facts and circumstances of this reported case does not give any benefit to the applicants.

On the other hand learned Government Advocate cited AIR 2004 SCW 815, Ram Prakash v. State of Karnataka in which it is held that:

Therefore the only question which needs to be dealt with relates to the applicability of section 307, Indian Penal Code. The evidence of the eye-witnesses goes to show that they tried to intervene and save P.W. 3 from being assaulted by the appellant A-l, but he continued to assault PW 3. The first blow was on vital part that is on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on non-vital parts, that does not take away the rigor of section 307, Indian Penal Code. It is to be noted that in spite of interference by five persons, appellant continued to assault P.W. 3 This clearly indicates the intention of the appellant A-l.

It is sufficient to justify a conviction u/s 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deducted from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The sections made a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section 307, Indian Penal Code merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.

In view of the above referred decision of the Apex Court if the case at hand is examined on the basis of challan papers placed on record by the applicant, then it is quite clear that four applicants were entered into a domestic residential house of the complainant and caused so many injuries to the complainant and other persons of his family and other circumstances as mentioned in F.I.R. and the statement recorded during investigation specifically explain the intention of applicants about causing the fatal injuries to complainant and his family members. Therefore, apart from the medical evidence I found sufficient circumstances and ingredients for framing the charges u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants. Therefore, according to my considered view the trial Court has not committed any perversity or illegality in passing the impugned order and framing the charges as said above.

In the abovesaid premises no error of jurisdiction has been committed by trial Court in passing the impugned order so it cannot be interfered by invoking revisional jurisdiction as such the revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.