Sageer @ Saeed vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the case diary is not available, on the other hand the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has copy of charge sheet, and therefore the matter may be considered with the help of copy of charge sheet. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally.

By this Criminal Revision u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C. the applicants have challenged the order dated 20.9.2012 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No. 444/2012 whereby three counts of charges of the offence u/s 307/34 of IPC were framed against the applicants along with other charges.

The prosecution case, in short, is that there was a dispute between the parties relating to repayment of some amount. On 17.4.2012 at about 9:00 PM the complainant Mohd. Haroon and his son went to the shop of Gulsher Ahmed near Pachkuinya to demand the entire money. The complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 1500/- from the accused Rajjab, because Salim, brother of the Rajjab took that sum from the complainant. The applicants started abusing and thereafter they assaulted the complainant by sticks and knife. Mohd. Haroon and Mohd. Sonu, nephews of the complainant went to save him, and therefore the applicants also assaulted them by sticks and knife. The victims were sent for their medico legal examination and treatment and thereafter the charge sheet was filed.

The learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties has framed the aforesaid charges against the applicants vide impugned order dated 20.9.2012.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the victim Mohd. Haroon sustained two incised wounds, one was on his thumb and second was on the right frontoparietal region. Mohd. Sonu also sustained two incised wounds, one was on his little finger and another was on the parietal region. He had also blunt injuries and he complained about the fracture of ulna. The victim Mohd. Anwar sustained seven blunt injuries on various parts of his body. The victims were examined initially by the doctor, who recorded their medico legal examination. Thereafter they were examined in the Medical College, Jabalpur and ultimately they were treated in Anant Institute of Medical Science, Jabalpur. However, no fracture was found on the head of any of the victims. No doctor has given any opinion that any vital part of the body was found cut or damaged. It is true that there is allegation against the applicants that they assaulted on the head of Mohd. Haroon and Mohd. Sonu by sharp cutting weapon. However, the injuries were not deep, therefore it would be apparent that no force was used by the applicants to assault these victims so that any fatal injury would be caused. It was a quarrel took place suddenly and therefore it cannot be said that the applicants were intended to kill the victims Mohd. Haroon, Mohd. Sonu and Moh. Anwara.

The various medical reports indicate that no fracture was found on the head of any of the victims and no fatal injury was found to them. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicants had any knowledge to their act that any fatal injury would be caused. Under such circumstances, in absence of intention and knowledge in causing injuries to the victims, it cannot be said that the applicants were intended or had knowledge to kill the victims Mohd. Haroon, Mohd. Sonu or Mohd. Anwar. Prima facie no offence u/s 307 of IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC. If offence u/s 307 of IPC is not made out against the applicants, then the case shall not remain to be tried by the Sessions Court, and therefore it would be proper to set aside the impugned order in toto.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicants is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 20.9.2012 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur is hereby set aside. The applicants are discharged from the three counts of charges of offence punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34 of IPC. The trial Court is directed to hear the parties for framing of the charges and if it is required then an order u/s 228 of Cr.P.C. may also be passed. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.