Tabish Khan and Another vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This revision petition has been preferred u/s 397/ 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ganj Basoda, in S.T. No. 286/12 on 31/10/2012, whereby charges under Sections 452, 294, 323/ 34 (on two counts), 307/ 34 and 506 Part II of IPC have been framed against the petitioners. The facts leading to this revision petition in brief are that on 30.12.2011 complainant was in his hotel. Petitioners came there and on a dispute of use of tractor, started abusing the complainant. When complainant objected, the petitioners gave beating to him. When brother of complainant namely Rajesh intervened, petitioner No. 1-Tabis Khan gave a blow of iron rod to Rajesh above his left ear, as a result, blood started oozing. Petitioner No. 2-Majid Khan gave a stick blow on his left elbow. When people got collected, the petitioners ran away from the spot. The report was lodged by the complainant which was registered as Adam Check. The petitioners were sent for medical examination and thereafter the FIR was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 451, 294, 323, 307, 506/ 34 of IPC. After the case was committed for trial, the learned ASJ framed the charges as aforesaid.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court has not applied judicial mind while framing the charges. It is settled principle of law that offence u/s 307 of IPC can only be said to have been made out when there was an intention to cause death. In order to gather the intention, entire material placed before the Court has to be seen. No where in the FIR or in the statements recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., it is alleged that the petitioners used the criminal force with intention to cause death. In such circumstances, prima facie, the charge u/s 307 of IPC is not made out. The doctor who examined the injured persons clearly opined that the injuries are simple in nature and injured were discharged after four days. Thus, the medical evidence also does not establish that injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. As per the prosecution case itself, the dispute arose over use of tractor. The complainant developed dishonest intention and to get rid of payment due towards him, has got this case registered with the connivance of the police. It is prayed that impugned order be set aside and petitioners be discharged.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State supported the impugned order and submits that injuries to injured Rajesh have been inflicted by means of iron rod on a vital part of his body causing fracture. Medical Officer has categorically opined that the injuries are dangerous to life. Therefore, charges have rightly been framed.

In order to appreciate the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

As per the report, complainant was in his hotel. The petitioners came there and started abusing him. When he objected, they gave beating to him. When his brother Rajesh tried to save him, petitioner No. 1 Tabis Khan gave a blow by means of iron rod above his left ear and petitioner No. 2 Majid Khan gave a Danda blow on his left elbow. They also damaged the goods. In case diary statement complainant Rajkumar has stated what has been alleged in the FIR. As per the statement of Rajesh, petitioner No. 1-Tabis Khan gave a blow by means of iron rod above his left ear and petitioner No. 2-Majid Khan inflicted a Danda blow on his hand. Mathura Prasad and Santosh, who have intervened in the matter, have also corroborated the statements of complainant Rajkumar and Rajesh. Medical report of Rajkumar reveals that he received a contusion and abrasion, while Rajesh has received contusion behind left ear, bleeding from left ear and tenderness over left elbow. Injury No. 3 has been opined to be simple in nature. For ascertaining the nature of injuries No. 1 and 2, injured was referred for x-ray examination. In x-ray examination, fracture was found over left frontal region. On query the medical officer has opined that the injury appears to be dangerous to life.

It is true that complainant and witnesses in their case diary statements no where have stated that injury has been inflicted with intention to cause death. It is also true that in the FIR also, no where it is mentioned that injury has been caused with intention to kill Rajesh. But non-mentioning of intention in the FIR and the case dairy statements does not mean that intention of the petitioners was not to kill Rajesh. The intention of the accused persons has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case such as previous relations, weapon used by the assailants, part of the body chosen by the assailants to cause injury, the force applied while causing injuries and so on.

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 view of the aforesaid legal principles, if we assess the material placed before the Court by the prosecution, prima facie charges under Sections 452, 294, 323/ 34 (on two counts), 307/ 34 and 506 Part II of IPC are made out. The learned court below has not committed any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in framing the charges against the petitioners. This revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed.