Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 142 (MP)

Lotan Prasad v. State of M. P.

2001-02-13

FAKHRUDDIN

body2001
Short Note The revision is against the order dated 30.10.2000. passed by the Special Judge. whereby the petitioners/accused have been charged for the offence under section 307 of IPC. Learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the charge-sheet which has been framed against the petitioners-accused does not contain the required ingredients of section 307 of IPC. He read out the same to contend that there is no material against accused. Learned Counsel appearing for the State, on the otherhand, submitted that there is sufficient material on record to frame the charges against the accused petitioners and the Court below after considering the entire material on record passed the impugned order. In this case, the FIR had been lodged on 3.7.1992, typed copy of which has been filed by the counsel for the petitioners. On perusal of the FIR, it is noted that the complainant Govindrai, who is lodger of the FIR. earlier had made a written complaint to the concerned police station to the effect that Anil, Sunil, Ramesh, Surendra and Lotan had fired at him twice with intention to kill him. After receipt of such a complaint, the ASI. Shri R.U.S. Yadav went on the spot and investigated the matter, and after inquiry, the inquiry report was submitted by him according to which the accused-petitioners named above have been found to have committed an offence which comes within the ambit of section 336 of IPC. The crime accordingly was registered and the challan was filed against the petitioners for an offence under section 336 of IPC. The learned Magistrate, however, considering the facts and circumstances and the material on record especially the FIR, found that the offence under section 307 IPC is made out, against the petitioners-accused. The case, therefore, was committed to the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Court by the impugned order, after considering the matter, framed the charges against the accused. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the complainant was fired twice by the petitioners with intention to kill him. It is pointed out by him that one Surendra Tiwari alongwith other persons got registered one bigha of complainant's land, in their names, in the month of February 1992, but they did not pay a single pie to the complainant. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the complainant was fired twice by the petitioners with intention to kill him. It is pointed out by him that one Surendra Tiwari alongwith other persons got registered one bigha of complainant's land, in their names, in the month of February 1992, but they did not pay a single pie to the complainant. When they came to take possession of the aforesaid land, the complainant asked them to pay the money first and then take the possession of the land in question, on which they threatened the complainant. Next day, at 5 a.m. in the morning they again came to the residence of the complainant and fired at him twice. The relevant portion of the FIR is extracted below: ^^lqjsUnz frokjh us vU; yksxksa lfgr ,d ch/kk tehu Qjojh 92 esa jftLVªh djkbZ Fkh] ftldk iSlk vkt rd ugh fn;k] cl ;s yksx dCtk ysus vk;s rks eSus iSlk nsus dks dgk] vkSj iSlk u nsus rd dCtk ugha djus dks dgk] jksdus ij mlus /kedh nh fd vc rqe jg yks bl bykds esa rqe esa ls ,d vk/k dks tku ls gkFk /kksuk iM+sxkA vkt lqcg 5 cts ds djhc esjs fuokl ds ihNs ls nks Qk;j fd, x,A ftuesa ,d xksyh lulukrh gqbZ fudy x;h] vxj og vUnj dejs esa pyh tkrh rks esjk ,dk/k ifjokjtu vo'; ej tkrk] nwljh xksyh us nhokj esa yxHkx 1&1@2 bap yackbZ&pkSM+kbZ dk lfdZy xM<+k cuk fn;k gSA eSus iwoZ esa Hkh ,l ih lkgsc o Fkkus dk 'kiFki= ns pqdk gwW] esjs ifjokj o esjh tku [krjs esa gS] xksfy;ks dh vkokt ls gMcMkdj eS mBk vkSj Nr ij Hkkxk rFkk ns[kk fd vfuy] lqfuy] jes'k] lqjsUnz o yksVuizlkn fiNokM+s muds edku dh vkSj Hkkx jgs FksA jes'k o vfuy ds gkFkksa esa ,d&,d canwd FkhA bl rjg vkt og ?kM+h vk x;h tc geesa ls dksbZ ejus okyk gSA^ Learned Counsel for the state Stated that the manner in which the incident had occurred goes to show seriousness of the offence. It is submitted that each of the accused-persons was armed with deadly weapons and their intention was to kill the complainant. It is submitted that each of the accused-persons was armed with deadly weapons and their intention was to kill the complainant. Be that as it may, having considered the facts and circumstances and the material on record, in the opinion of this Court, it is just and proper to remand the matter back to the Sessions Court to re-hear both the parties and re-consider the matter afresh by passing a reasoned and detailed order. If the charges are required to be framed the same shall be framed in such a way so that accused would be in a position to meet the same. It is made clear that the trial Court shall decide the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. With this observation and the direction, the revision-petition is disposed of.