Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 155 (MP)

Ansaruddin v. State of M. P.

1997-03-20

S.B.SAKRIKAR

body1997
ORDER 1. The applicant/complainant has directed this revision against the order dated 22nd July, 1994 rendered by XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in ST No. 593/93, thereby discharging the non-applicants No.2 and 3 of the proposed charges under section 307/34 IPC and remanding the case to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Depalpur for trial for the offence punishable under section 324/34 IPC under the provisions of S. 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 3rd February, 1993 at about 12.50 p.m. at village Depalimr, non-applicant No.2 Abdul Kadir armed with a knife and non-applicant No.3 Naimuddin went to the house of the complainant and quarrelled with the complainant by means of knife. On the report of the complainant/applicant, an offence under section 307/34 IPC was registered against non-applicants No.2 and 3 at Police Station, Depalpur. 3. Police Depalpur on investigations, filed challan against non-applicants No.2 and 3 under Sec. 307/34 IPC in the Court of JMFC Depalpur. On receipt of the case on committal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, while considering the case on charge, declined to frame charge against non-applicants No.2 and 3 for the offence under section 307/34 IPC and remanded the case to the JMFC Depalpur in terms of provisions of section 228 CrPC for trial of the non-applicants for the offence under section 324/34. IPC. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision against the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge. 4. I have heared Shri Jaisingh learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Abdul Salim learned PL for the State/non-applicant No. 1 and Shri S.K. Vyas learned counsel for the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that in view of the injuries found on the body of the complainant, as per facts contained in bed-head ticket No. 1056 dated 3.2.1993 of M.Y. Hospital, Indore and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie case for framing charge under sections 307 and 307/34 IPC against the non-applicants No.2 and 3 is clearly made out. The counsel also submitted that learned trial Judge, without considering the facts contained in bed-head ticket and the nature of injuries caused to the complainant, has committed error in passing the impugned order. 6. The counsel also submitted that learned trial Judge, without considering the facts contained in bed-head ticket and the nature of injuries caused to the complainant, has committed error in passing the impugned order. 6. Shri Abdul Salim, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/non applicant No. I fully supported the contentions of the counsel for the applicant and submitted that from the material on record, primafacie case for framing charge under sections 307 and 307/34 IPC against the non-applicants No.2 and 3, is clearly made out. 7. The counsel appearing for the non-applicants No.2 and 3, in oppugnation, supported the impugned order and submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. 8. For fair disposal of the revision, provisions of sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant. Section 227 provides that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents, submitted therewith, and after hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. In section 228 (1) (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is stated that after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he may frame a charge against the accused and trasnfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Both these sections when read together make it clear that at the stage of framing of the charges only the sufficiency of ground for presuming the commission of the offence has to be seen. The assessment of sufficiency of material for basing a conviction is not within the competence of the Court at this stage. 9. For the disposal of the revision petition, provisions of section 307 IPC would also be useful, which reads as follows :- "307. The assessment of sufficiency of material for basing a conviction is not within the competence of the Court at this stage. 9. For the disposal of the revision petition, provisions of section 307 IPC would also be useful, which reads as follows :- "307. Attempt to murder :-- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years; and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to (imprisonment for life) or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned." 10. Considering the provisions of section 307 IPC it emerged that it is not necessary that injury, capable of causing death, should have been inflicted. What is material to attract the provisions of section 307 IPC is the guilty intention or knowledge with which the act was done, irrespective of its result. The intention and knowledge are the matters of inference from totality of circumstances and cannot be measured merely from the results. 11. In the instant case, allegations made in the first information report and the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the CrPC during investigations and the nature of injuries received by complainant prima facie case is made out under S. 307 IPC. In the injury report of the applicant/complainant the following injuries were found; "1. Incised penetrating wound over the right side of abdomen just by the side of imblious omentum seen coming out of the incised penetrating wound. size: 3/4" x 1/4" deep into the abdomen. Margines are cleancut and regular. Advised x-ray of the abdomen. 2. Incised wound 1/2"x1/4"x1/8" over the lower aspect of the left forearm. Margins are regular. Blood clots present in the wound. Both injuries seem to be caused by somehard and sharp and penetrating object within 1 to 2 hours duration. Opinion regarding notice of the injury No.1 will be given after x-ray of plain abdomen." 12. On perusal of bed-head ticket of M.Y. Hospital Indore, it emerged that the applicant/complainant was admitted in the hospital for treatment of the injuries on 3.2.93 and discharged on 15.2.1993. Opinion regarding notice of the injury No.1 will be given after x-ray of plain abdomen." 12. On perusal of bed-head ticket of M.Y. Hospital Indore, it emerged that the applicant/complainant was admitted in the hospital for treatment of the injuries on 3.2.93 and discharged on 15.2.1993. The complainant had undergone surgical operation on the injuries found on the abdomen and perforations were repaired which were found on duodonal and jejunal junction. 13. It is no doubt true that in the challan papers no specific opinion of the doctor is available that the injuries found on the abdomen were dangerous to life but as held by this Court in Ghumansingh v. Jaswant Singh ( 1991 JLJ 387 ) the absence of specific opinion of the doctor that injuries were dangerous to life would not take out the case from the purview of the offence under section 307 IPC, the Court can also take judicial notice of the nature of the injuries from the medical report and form its own opinion. 14. In the instant case, as per medical report and the bed-head ticket of the complainant, incised penetrating wound was found on the abdomen, the omentum was coming out with perforations found on the internal part of the intestines. It is difficult to concur with the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that no such offence which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions is made out against the non-applicants No.2 and 3. 15. In the instant case, the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore holding that no offence triable by the Court of Session is made out and remanding the case under section 228 (I) CrPC to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Depalpur for trial after framing charges under section 324/34 IPC against the non-applicants No.2 and 3, being erroneous cannot be allowed to stand. 16. As a result of the foregoing discussions, this revision petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore is set aside and it is directed that Additional Sessions Judge, Indore would frame appropriate charges against the non-applicants No.2 and 3 and hold the trial in conformity with law.