Raju @ Rajendra Pateriya And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Arvind Singh Chandel, J

The revision is listed for hearing on admission. With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 3.11.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Katghora, District Korba in Sessions Trial No.48 of 2017 framing charge against the accused/Applicants under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 17.5.2014, a First Information Report was registered on the basis of written complaint dated 15.5.2014

submitted by Complainant Manish Rathore against the accused/Applicants. It is alleged that on 15.5.2014 at about 3:30 p.m., Complainant Manish

Rathore was beaten by the Applicants with baseball stick and hockey. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered on 17.5.2014. The

offence in question was investigated by the police and thereafter a charge- sheet was filed against the accused/Applicants for offences punishable

under Sections 323, 506, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 3.11.2017, charges were framed against them under Sections 325/34

of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that during repairing work of canal on 15.5.2014, at about 3:30 p.m., when Applicant No.1,

Raju alias Rajendra was standing with Applicant No.2, Vikash, Complainant Manish reached there and illegally demanded money and started abusing

the Applicants. When they refused to fulfill his illegal demand, the Complainant himself assaulted with a knife to Applicant Vikash. Vikash sustained

grievous injuries on the stomach and other parts of the body. On his complaint, police registered a case under Sections 307 and 294 of the Indian Penal

Code. Thereafter, Complainant Manish, only to counter the case lodged by Applicant Vikash, lodged the false report against the Applicants. It is

further argued that even in his statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, witness Amjad Khan, who first received call

from Complainant Manish, has categorically stated that "" euh""k jkBkSj eq>ls eksckbZy dks ekaxk vkSj dgha Qksu fd;k vkSj iwNk fd esjs f[kykQ

dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha gks jgk gS bl ij vxyk O;fDr mls crk;k fd rqEgkjs f[kykQ 307 dh /kkjk yxh gS fQj euh""k jkBkSj eq>s cksyk fd njhZ ls pyks eSa

viuh eksVj lk;dy esa cSB dj njhZ bLekby dqjS'kh ds ?kj ys vk;k "". In his statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Amjad

Khan, who was a close friend of Complainant Manish, has clearly stated that Complainant Manish had called with mobile phone to another person and

got information whether any report was lodged against him or not. When he received information from that person that the police had registered a

crime against him under Section 307 of the Indian Panel Code, he, after 10 hours of the incident, got admitted himself in the hospital with a collusion

with an officer of the hospital and also got prepared 2 discharge tickets. Complainant Manish lodged the report after 2 days of the incident after

getting prepared forged medical discharge tickets. Thus, both the discharge tickets are doubtful. Hence, no charge is made out against the Applicants

and they deserve to be discharged from prosecution.

Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned order, submitted that the written report of Complainant Manish is of

15.5.2014 and after making inquiry into the same, FIR was registered on 17.5.2014 and, therefore, the written report was made belatedly is not

established. It is further argued that a quarrel had taken place between the Applicants and Complainant Manish. Witnesses Madhukar Kumhare, S.K.

Pathak, Rajesh Kumar Diwaker and Nayan Ranjan Choudhary, in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

have clearly stated that a quarrel had taken place between the Applicants and Complainant Manish. It is further argued that even from the medical

examination report and x-ray report, it is established that Complainant Manish had suffered grievous injuries. It is further argued that the instant is not

a case of discharge of the Applicants from prosecution.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care.

The Applicants are named in the written report submitted by Complainant Manish on 15.5.2014 and on the basis of the said report, FIR was

registered on 17.5.2014. From the medical examination report and the x-ray report of Complainant Manish, it is clear that Complainant Manish had

sustained grievous injuries. Madhukar Kumhare, S.K. Pathak and Rajesh Kumar Diwaker have clearly stated in their statements recorded under

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they had witnessed the quarrel took place between the Applicants and Complainant Manish.

Nayan Ranjan Choudhary has specifically stated in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had seen the assault

took place between the Applicants and Complainant Manish.

From the material available on the record of the criminal revision and the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there is evidence available to establish

the involvement of the Applicants in the offence in question. The Trial Court has rightly framed the charge under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal

Code against the Applicants.

Consequently, the revision is dismissed.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court below forthwith for information and necessary compliance.