Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 218 (MP)

Mohd. Arif v. State of M. P.

2005-02-10

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2005
ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This revision petition under section 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code, has been preferred against the order dated 13-12-2004, passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Khandwa, by which a direction for framing of charges under sections 148, 323/149 and 307/149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') has been given and in pursuance of that the charges were framed. 2. As per prosecution case on 24-6-2003 at about 9.30 a.m. at Chhipa Colony, Khandwa where complainant Abdul Vasid with his brother Abdul Lateef and some other persons doing measurement of a plot for handing over the possession to other person at the same time present applicants belonging to Devbadi side and some other persons of the same locality arrived there and objected in regarding to the said measurement then said Lateef asked them that they do not intervene but still they become aggressor and saying so many things against the complainant and some other persons initially after giving some intimidation applicants started assaulting to complainant and other accompanied persons by sticks, whereby applicants have caused so many injuries to complainant and abovesaid accompanied persons. As alleged such assault was made with the intention to cause death. During this incident the said complainant and other persons have received injuries. 3. The abovesaid incident was informed to police where Crime No. 271/03 was registered and after holding investigation the charge-sheet was submitted and in pursuance of charge-sheet the case was committed to the Court of session where the abovesaid charges framed. 4. In support of this revision petition counsel for applicants submitted that all the injured persons were medically examined and as per their medical reports whatsoever injuries have been found to them neither injury is said to be of grievous in nature nor any one is sufficient to cause death of any of the injured person. He further contended that on asking by the Investigating agency the concerning Doctor has opined that nature of injuries are simple, therefore, in any case, on the basis of charge-sheet, the offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code is not made out against any of the applicants. 5. The counsel for applicants has also submitted that other circumstances are also not warranted to frame the charge under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. 6. 5. The counsel for applicants has also submitted that other circumstances are also not warranted to frame the charge under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. 6. In view of the abovesaid submission I have perused the papers of charge-sheet, as submitted by the counsel for applicant in relating to the Medico Legal Reports. The submissions are correct but out of these all injured persons Mohd. Yakoob, Abdul Vaseem and Abdul Lateef have got injuries on their heads and head is a vital part of the body. Being causing injuries over the head which is a vital part of the human body therefore at the stage of framing of charge, besides the medical report the other circumstances and intention of assailants should also be seen. 7. In this respect, in the statements of witnesses which are recorded during interrogation under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code and in F.I.R. the whole scenario of the incident are mentioned and according to these the contentions are sufficient to draw inference that the accused's intention was causing death to victims at the time of the incident. Without going on merits of the case at the initial stage for framing of the charges there are sufficient circumstances to frame the charge against all the applicants under section 307 of Indian Penal Code along with as alleged the other sections of Indian Penal Code. 8. So, by relying on medical legal certificate/report the impugned order cannot be quashed or set aside because the Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed the verdict in a case of R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2004 SCW 815 which says as under : 8. Therefore, the only question which need to be dealt with relates to the applicability of section 307, Indian Penal Code. The evidence of the eyewitnesses goes to show that they tried to intervene and save PW 3 from being assaulted by the applicant A-l, but he continued to assault P.W.-3. The first blow was on the vital part, that is on the temporal region. Even though other blows were of non-vital part, that does not take away the rigor of section 307, Indian Penal Code. It is to be noted that in spite of interference by five persons, appellant continued to assault P.W.-3. This clearly indicates the intention of the appellant No. 1. 9. Even though other blows were of non-vital part, that does not take away the rigor of section 307, Indian Penal Code. It is to be noted that in spite of interference by five persons, appellant continued to assault P.W.-3. This clearly indicates the intention of the appellant No. 1. 9. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under section 307 if there is present in intention coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused of such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its insult, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under section 307, Indian Penal Code merely because the injuries inflicted on victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. 9. In view of the abovesaid cited case, the case at hand, I find similar situation where so many injuries along with the vital part of body have been caused by the accused to the complainant and their accompanied persons and it appears from the challan papers that the prima-facie intention of applicants/accused was causing death of the complainant and other injured. 10. In view of the abovesaid premises I do not find any perversity or illegality or irregularity or anything against the propriety of the law and as such the impugned order is passed within the framework of jurisdiction vested in the trial Court. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. However any observations made in this order shall not influence the trial or its decision on merits.