Suwa Lal and Another vs State of Rajasthan

Shashi Kant Sharma, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 15.2.2001 passed by Judl. Magistrate, 1st Class, Chomu, district Jaipur, framing charge against the petitioners for the offence u/s 326 I.P.C.

Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that in this matter complainant Madan Lal had lodged a written report before the Police Station, Govindgarh, district Jaipur, alleging that accused persons have inflicted injuries to Ramchandra by blunt weapons. On this F.I.R., a case was registered by Police for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. and after investigation challan was filed against both the accused petitioners for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. It is contended that in the matter challan was filed for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. but the Lower Court has wrongly framed the charge against these petitioners for the offences u/s 326 I.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order is absolutely illegal and deserves to be set- aside.

It is further contended that injured Ramchandra in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. stated that he was inflicted injuries by stick. He was examined by doctor and it was found that injuries were caused by blunt weapon. It is urged that in the impugned order, Lower Court has no where mentioned how does it find an offence u/s 326 I.P.C. against these accused persons. The accused persons can be charged for the offence u/s 326 I.P.C. only when grievous injury is caused by any weapon or means enumerated in Section 324 I.P.C. It is contended that according to the prosecution, injury to the injured is caused by blunt weapon and also a simple hurt, therefore, at the most, the accused persons could be charged only for the offence u/s 323 I.P.C.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that injured has received grievous hurt because the medical board has given an opinion that injured has lost his vision. But learned Public Prosecutor could not explain how the case is covered u/s 326 I.P.C. unless and until injury is caused by some weapon or means enumerated in Section 324 I.P.C.

I have also gone through the impugned order, wherein learned Magistrate has not mentioned as to how an offence is made out u/s 326 I.P.C. because for the said offence, Court has not come to the conclusion that injury was caused to the injured by weapon or means enumerated in Section 324 I.P.C. In this matter, Sections 324 and 326 are relevant which are as under:

Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.--Whoever, except in the case provided by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

After reading both these Sections 324 and 326, I came to the conclusion that first of all learned Magistrate should have come to the conclusion that in the matter injury was caused by such weapon or means which are enumerated in Section 324 I.P.C. But in his order it is not mentioned. Under these circumstances, in my view the impugned order is illegal and liable to be quashed.

In the result, revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.2.2001, is quashed arid set-aside and matter is remanded back to the trial court with a direction to hear both the parties on the point of charge and then pass a detailed order and while doing so, it should decide this question as to what offence is made out against each of the accused.

A copy of this order alongwith record be sent back to the trial court immediately.