Ram Prakash Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2009 (State Vs. Ram Prakash and others), Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Mainpuri rejected the petition moved on behalf of the applicants for discharge vide order dated 05.04.2011 and in pursuance of that order framed the charges under sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 (2) I.P.C. against the applicants on 15.09.2011. The order dated 05.04.2011 as well as the aforesaid charges have been impugned by the applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured were simple, therefore, the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. was not made out.

In my opinion, only on account of the nature of the injuries, it cannot be held that the offence u/s 307 was not made out. The totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in which the occurrence took place was also relevant point for determining the question whether or not the charge u/s 307 I.P.C. was made out. The learned trial court took into account all the relevant facts including the injuries and passed a reasoned order, therefore, I do not consider it proper to interfere with the matter.

The application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned trial court, if it ultimately records the verdict of guilt has to see at the final stage of the judgment on the basis of evidence collected during the trial as to whether the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. is made out or not.