Sujan Singh vs Gulab Bai

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

The applicant has challenged the order dated 25.3.2014 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur in ST No. 407/13 whereby the respondents No. 1 to 3 were discharged from the charge of Section 307 of IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that on 8.6.2013 the respondents No. 1 to 3 assaulted the victims Jagdish, Sujan Singh and Kewal Kirar. The victim Jagdish sustained incised wounds on his chest and neck. The victim Sujan Singh sustained a fracture of 5th finger whereas victim Kewal Kirar sustained a fracture of lower 1/3rd of ulna.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that the victims Sujan Singh and Kewal Kirar did not sustain any injury on the vital part of the body. The fractures were found on the hands and those were caused by hard and blunt object, and therefore at the most offence u/s 325 of IPC may constitute for the victims Sujan Singh and Kewal Kirar.

So far as the matter of the victim Jagdish is concerned, it is true that he sustained two incised wounds, first was on the chest having dimension 4" x 1 cm and second on the left neck having dimension 15" x 3 cm x skin deep. Though both the blows were given by the accused Dhanraj by an axe on the vital part of the body of the victim Jagdish. But looking to the nature of the injuries, it appears that each blow was given without any force, and therefore it cannot be presumed that the accused Dhanraj was intended to kill the victim Jagdish. Similarly, there is no report to show that the injuries caused to the victim Jagdish were fatal or grave. Under such circumstances, neither the injuries caused to the victim were fatal nor there was intention of accused Dhanraj to kill the victim Jagdish. Therefore no ingredients of Section 300 of IPC are attracted and prima facie no offence u/s 307 of IPC is constituted against any of the accused persons for the victim Jagdish.

The learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of this Court to the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Hari Mohan Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand, in which it is held that to determine the question of intention or knowledge, it would be decided on the facts of the particular case and the facts of the present case are discussed above. Similarly, she has placed her reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Balram Bama Patil and Others, in which it is held that if injury is fatal in nature, then offence u/s 307 of IPC shall be made out. In the present case, the injuries caused to the victim Jagdish are prima facie not established to be fatal in nature.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly discharged the respondents No. 1 to 3 from the charge of Section 307 of IPC. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara. There is no basis so that the present revision may be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.