Yunis vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P.

This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 29.4.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 1, Mathura in S.T. No. 123 of 2008 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, F.T.C.-I, Mathura whereby trial court has come to the conclusion that on the basis of the material collected by the Investigating Officer prima facie offence under Sections 336/34, 308/34, 504 and 506, I.P.C. is made out and framed the charges under aforesaid offences.

The facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by O.P. No. 2 Munna on 15.5.2007 at P. S. Kosilkalan, district Mathura in Case Crime No. 361 of 2007 under Sections 336, 504 and 506, I.P.C. In the said incident the first informant Munna and Md. Iliyas had sustained the injuries, according to the X-ray report of Mohd. Iliyas a depressed fracture on frontal bone of skull was found but in X-ray report of Munna nothing abnormal was detected thereafter the supplementary reports were prepared in which the injury having depressed fracture of frontal bone of skull was found grievous in nature but the injuries of Munna were found simple in nature. The matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer who submitted the charge-sheet dated 31.5.2007 against the applicant and two other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 336, 504, 506 and 308, I.P.C. on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicant to face the trial thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the applicant filed an application u/s 227, Cr. P.C. on 2.4.2008 claiming the discharge, in the Court of learned Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. No. 1, Mathura on the ground that there is a contradiction in the medical evidence, site plan, statement of the witnesses and no independent witness has been interrogated by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Thereafter the injured Iliyas moved an application in the trial court mentioning therein that his subsequent medical examination report may be taken on the record, the same was taken on the record and its copy was given to the counsel of the defence thereafter the discharge application was filed by the applicant which was rejected on 3.5.2008 and the charges have been framed on 22.7.2008.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the impugned order dated 29.4.2008 by which the medical examination report has been kept on the record and its copy has been given to the counsel for the defence is illegal. Subsequently the learned trial court has illegally rejected the application u/s 227, Cr. P.C. filed by the applicant after considering the subsequent medical examination report which was not part of the investigation and considering the same the charge has also been illegally framed u/s 308, I.P.C. because up to the stage of the charge only the material collected by the Investigating Officer is to be considered, no extraneous material can be considered for the framing of the charge.

In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that in the present case learned trial court has accepted the subsequent medical examination report but the charge-sheet has already been submitted u/s 308, I.P.C. on the basis of medical examination report, X-ray report and supplementary medical examination report collected by Investigating Officer. prima facie offence u/s 308 I.P.C. is made out. The trial court has passed the order rejecting the application u/s 227, Cr. P.C. without giving the importance to the subsequent medical examination report and trial court has framed the charges on the basis of the material collected by the Investigating Officer which was sufficient to frame the charge u/s 308, I.P.C. Due to submission of the subsequent medical examination report and supplying its copy to the counsel for the defence, the impugned order passed by trial court may not be illegal because u/s 91 of Cr. P.C. any document can be summoned by the trial court which is desirable for the purpose of trial but in the present case the charge has been framed for the offence in which the charge-sheet has been submitted and there was sufficient material to disclose the commission of the offence for which the applicant has been charged. The present application is devoid of merit, the same may be dismissed.

However, considering the submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of record it appears that in the present case the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet after recording the statement of the witnesses, collecting the medical examination reports, the X-ray reports and supplementary medical examination reports of the injured persons. The X-ray report of injured Iliyas shows that he has a depressed fracture of frontal bone of skull, according to the supplementary medical examination report also this injury was grievous in nature. Considering the same, the charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 336, 504, 506 and 308, I.P.C. and considering the same the trial court has rejected the application u/s 227, Cr. P.C. filed by the applicant and framed the charges against the applicant under Sections 336/34, 308/34, 504 and 506, I.P.C. So far as the acceptance of the subsequent medical report vide order dated 29.4.2008 is concerned the trial court has not committed any error in accepting this report and supplying it''s copy to the counsel for the defence. The impugned order dated 29.4.2008 is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity. So far as the order dated 3.5.2008 is concerned by which the learned trial court has rejected the discharge application filed by the applicant is also not suffering from any illegality or irregularity because even on the basis of the medical examination reports collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation prima facie offences under Sections 336/34, 504, 506 and 308/34, I.P.C. are made out. The learned trial court has not considered any extraneous material for framing the charge dated 22.7.2008 because on the basis of the material collected by the Investigating Officer prima facie aforesaid offences are made out. There is no illegality in the impugned orders dated 29.4.2008 and 22.7.2008 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.-I, Mathura in S.T. No. 123 of 2008, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is refused.

However, it shall be open to the applicant to raise such points at the stage of the trial.

With this observation, this application is finally disposed of.