Sanjay Sharma vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard on I.A.No.6951/2014, which is an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner was suffering from Malaria and the petitioner was looking after his father hence, he could not take the certified copy of the order and he has taken the certified copy of the order on 25.8.2004, thereafter this revision has been filed after delay of 18 days. Delay is based on bonafide, hence, prayed for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. The application is supported by affidavit as well as medical certificate.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.

Considering the aforesaid reason application is allowed and delay in filing in this revision petition is condoned.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this revision petition is heard finally.

This revision petition has been preferred u/s 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.5.2014 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh in S.T.No. 136/2014, whereby the charges under sections 294, 307 of IPC and sections 25(1-B) and 27 of Arms Act has been framed.

Brief facts of the case are that Shyam Shukla has lodged a report that he was standing near his house. The petitioner- Sanjay Sharma came there and started abusing him, and when he objected, the petitioner-Sanjay Sharma fired on him with an intention to kill him. The pallets hit him on his back, shoulder and head. He fell down thereafter Sanjay Sharma also gave beating by means of Katta causing injuries on his nose and lips. On the report of the complainant, Crime No. 245/2013 under Sections 307, 294 of IPC has been registered against the accused person.

During investigation, in pursuance of the memorandum of the petitioner, the Katta has been seized.

After investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. The case was committed for the trial. The learned Trial Court has framed the charges under sections 307, 294 of IPC and sections 25(1-B) and 27 of Arms Act. Being aggrieved this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material of framing charge u/s 307 of IPC because as per medical report no injury has been found which has been caused by fire-arm object. It is further submitted that no injury has been found to be grievous or dangerous to life to the complainant, therefore, no charge can be framed u/s 307 of IPC and learned Trial Court has committed illegality in framing the charge.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the FIR it has specifically mentioned that Sanjay Sharma fired at him with intention to kill him and prima facie there is sufficient material disclosing the commission of offence u/s 307 of IPC. Hence, no interference is required.

I have perused the challan papers.

In the report it has clearly been mentioned that Sanjay Sharma has took out Katta and fired on complainant with an intention to kill him when the complainant fell down Sanjay Sharma gave beating by means of Katta. During investigation in pursuance of the memorandum of Sanjay Sharma the Katta has been seized.

From the medical report, it appears that complainant Shyam Sharma has received one lacerated wound over right parieto occipital region of scalp, four abrasions, one contusion over mid fronto parietal region of scalp, one stab wound over right root of nose, one lacerated wound over upper lip right side and one contusion over lower lip. As per x-ray report R.O.S has been seen over parietal region and tip of nasal spine. Pankaj Sharma and Vipin Sharma in their case-diary statements have clearly stated that Sanjay took out Katta and fired at Shyam.

It is true that in the medical report it is mentioned that no injury has been caused by fire arm object, however, considering that on x-ray R.O.S has been found coupled with the fact that eye-witnesses have clearly stated that Katta was fired on complainant and during investigation the Katta has been seized at the instance of the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution case is not corroborated by the medical evidence is bereft of merit.

At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed.

In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, the Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr. P.C. and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed.

In the instant case, as already noted that in the FIR which has promptly been lodged it has clearly been mentioned that petitioner fired from Katta with an intention to kill the complainant. The eye-witnesses have corroborated this fact. In x-ray R.O.S. has been found and the Katta has also been seized. Thus, prima facie there is sufficient material for framing the charge u/s 307 of IPC.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in framing the charge u/s 307 of IPC against the petitioner.

Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.