Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1387 (MP)

ROOP SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.

2011-12-09

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. The applicants/accused have preferred this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 5-8-2011 passed by Special Judge (Constituted under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the Act') Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 84/11, framing the charges against each of them for the offence of sections 147, 148, 186/149, 353/149, 307/149, 333/149, 332/149 and 294 of Indian Penal Code and also of section 3(2)(v) of the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on dated 14-3-2011, at about 10.30 in the night Amar Singh, Head Constable posted at Police outpost Athawan of Police Station Varaytha lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Varaytha contending that he along with Constable Arvind Yadav and Anand Pratap after taking their meals was taking rest in the police outpost, at about 10.20 p.m. the applicants accompanied with other 15 to 20 persons lashed with Katarna, the sharp edged weapons, Ballam, (Spear) a sharp edged pointed weapons and sticks due to earlier enmities on account of some old report, by entering in the police outpost in furtherance of their common object, started violence. On asking them the reason in this regard on which, the applicant No. l Jhallu Raja gave a blow of Katarna on him with intention to cause his death consequently, he sustained the injury on his head with bleedings. He shouted for help on which, the abovementioned Arvind and Anand Pratap, taking rest, came to rescue him, then said Constable Arvind, was subjected to blow of Katarna by the applicant No. 2 Makhan Singh resultantly, he also sustained the hurt on his head with bleeding. Simultaneously, the Constable Anand Pratap was subjected to blow of lathi by co-accused Bade Lodhi resultantly, he sustained the injury in his leg. As per further averments, by the abovementioned acts, the applicants accompanied the other co-accused have created the obstruction in discharging their duties as police officials. It was also stated that the complainant-Amar Singh, was also humiliated and harassed by the applicants along with the co-accused on account of his caste covered under the Act. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the crime of the offence of sections 452, 334, 332, 294, 307, 147, 148, 149, 353 and 332 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(v) of the Act was registered against the applicants and other co-accused. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the crime of the offence of sections 452, 334, 332, 294, 307, 147, 148, 149, 353 and 332 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(v) of the Act was registered against the applicants and other co-accused. After lodging the report, the victims were sent to the hospital where on medical examination their MLC reports were prepared. The victim Amar Singh and Arvind, were advised to carry out the X-ray of some injuries. On carrying out the same, no fracture was found on the person of Arvind while, the fracture in the 1st metacarpal of the right hand of Amar Singh, was revealed. After holding the investigation, the applicants along with other co-accused were charge-sheeted for their prosecution under the aforesaid sections. After committing the case to the Sessions Court on framing the charges of the sections mentioned in the first para of this order, the applicants abjured the guilt and being dissatisfied with such order, has come to this Court with this revision. 3. Applicants' counsel Shri R. S. Patel, after taking me through the certified copy of the charge-sheet placed on the record along with the impugned order and the framed charges argued that on taking into consideration the face value of the entire charge-sheet as accepted in it's entirety, the charge of section 307 or 307 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code are not made out and prayed for setting aside such charge framed by the trial Court, in continuation, he said that after framing the charge of sections 333/149 and 332/149 of Indian Penal Code, the charges framed under sections 186/149 and 353/149 of Indian Penal Code are not sustainable as the offence made punishable under sections 186 and 353 of Indian Penal Code being minor offence of section 333 and 332 of Indian Penal Code, the charge of such sections are included in sections 333 and 332 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the charges framed separately under such sections i.e. 186/149 and 353/149 of Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside. So far other charges are concerned, he fairly conceded that in view of the evidence available in the charge-sheet, the same does not require any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and prayed to allow this revision accordingly. 4. On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. So far other charges are concerned, he fairly conceded that in view of the evidence available in the charge-sheet, the same does not require any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and prayed to allow this revision accordingly. 4. On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate by justifying the impugned order as well as the charges framed by the trial Court against the applicants said that the same being in consonance with the papers of the charge-sheet, does not require any interference either for setting aside the charge of section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code or deleting the charges framed under sections 186/149 and 353/149 of Indian Penal Code. Besides this, he argued that looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicants with the victims in furtherance of common object by means of Katarna, sticks and Ballam (sphere), thus merely on the basis of nature of the injuries stated in their MLC reports X-ray reports, it could not be said that the applicants have not committed the offence of section 307 of Indian Penal Code. According to him, taking into consideration the entire scenario, this was a fit case for framing the charge of section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants and in such premises, the trial Court has not committed any error and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 5. Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view of their arguments advanced, 1 have carefully gone through the certified copy of the charge-sheet placed on the record along with the impugned order and the framed charges. 6. It settled proposition of law that the accused like applicants may be tried and convicted for such offending act which actually they have committed and not for that act, which in the available circumstances they could have committed, but did not commit. So, keeping in view such proposition in the available circumstances, this Court has to answer the question, whether the trial Court has rightly framed the charge of section 307/149, 353/149 and 186/149 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants or such approach of the trial Court requires interference for setting aside the same. 7. So, keeping in view such proposition in the available circumstances, this Court has to answer the question, whether the trial Court has rightly framed the charge of section 307/149, 353/149 and 186/149 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants or such approach of the trial Court requires interference for setting aside the same. 7. It is appears from the aforesaid factual matrix of the case as stated in para 2 of this order that at the time of alleged incident the complainant-Amar Singh as well as the other two victims Constables namely, Arvind and Anand Pratap after taking their meals were taking the rest in the Police out-Post as such they were not actually discharging any public duty as police officials, but the victims being police official of the same Police out-Post, were taking the rest inside of the same Police out-Post and at that time, if any person like the applicants accompanied with other co-accused entered in the Police Station with the alleged weapons and created some violence, then the victims being police official were bound to resist such act of the applicants in discharging their official duty and pursuant to it on resisting the same they were subjected to aforesaid beating by the applicants and sustained the injuries. Thus, in such premises, it should be deemed that the applicants accompanied with others created the obstructions in discharging the public duty of the victims as police officials and also caused them the injuries as stated by the doctor in their MLC and X-ray reports. So, in such premises, I have found sufficient prima facie evidence in the charge-sheet against the applicants for committing the offence of sections 186, 353, 332 and 333 of Indian Penal Code but, I am also of the view that sections 333 and 332 of Indian Penal Code being major sections of punishment of same cognet of sections 186 and 353 of Indian Penal Code and after recording the evidence in trial on establishing the ingredients of sections 186 and 353 of Indian Penal Code, then the accused like applicants by virtue of section 222 of Criminal Procedure Code, could be convicted for the minor offence made punishable under sections 353 and 186 of Indian Penal Code under the charges framed for the Offence of section 332/149 and 333/149 of Indian Penal Code. In such premises, the charge of sections 186/149 and 353/149 of Indian Penal Code being not required separately deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the same are hereby set aside. 8. Before proceeding further to decide the sustainability of the charge framed under sections 307/149, 333/149 and 332/149 of Indian Penal Code, I deem fit to reproduce the injuries sustained by the victims as found by the doctor in their respective MLC and X-ray reports. The same are as under :- A. As per MLC report of Amar Singh-complainant, he sustained the following injuries : (i) 1. Lacerated wound on the posterior part of right parietal region of skull 4 x 2 x 2 cms in size coagulated blood and on around the wound + 2. Swelling on the dorsal aspect of right hand including right wrist joint. Tenderness+ Restriction of movements. 3. Abrasion (Red brown) on the antero medial aspect of upper part of left leg 4 x 2 cm. 4. Bruise (Red blue) on the antero medial aspect of lower part of left leg 5 x 2 cm. 5. Abrasion on the left shoulder region 5 x 3 cm. 6. Bruise (Red + blue) just below the left scapuler region 6 x 3 cm. 7. Bruise (Red-blue) on the posterior aspect of upper part of Right upper arm 6 x 2 cm. As per X-ray report given by the radiologist, he sustained the fracture of 1st metacarpal of his right hand. Except the aforesaid injury of fracture, all other injuries were stated by the doctor to be simple in nature. The alleged fracture by virtue of section 320 of Indian Penal Code shall be treated to be grievous in nature. B. As per MLC report of Arvind, Constable, he sustained the following injuries : (i) 1. Incised wound on the posterior part of right parietal region of skull 4 x 2 x 2 cm in size 2. Abrasion(Red-brown) on the left shoulder region 7 x 5 cm. 3. Bruise (Red-blue) on the right shoulder region 6 x 4 cm. 4. Bruise (Red-blue) on the anterior aspect of right knee joint 5 x 3 cm. 5. Abrasion on the right side of back at the level of T11 vertebra 4 x 2 cm. 6. Bruise (Red-blue) on the left blank of abdomen 6 x 3 cm. 7. 3. Bruise (Red-blue) on the right shoulder region 6 x 4 cm. 4. Bruise (Red-blue) on the anterior aspect of right knee joint 5 x 3 cm. 5. Abrasion on the right side of back at the level of T11 vertebra 4 x 2 cm. 6. Bruise (Red-blue) on the left blank of abdomen 6 x 3 cm. 7. Bruise on the dorsal aspect of lower part of left forearm 5 x 3 cm. (ii) It is noted that no X-ray report of any injury of this victim has been placed with the charge-sheet, thus in such premises, the injury sustained by this victim shall be treated to be simple in nature as stated by the doctor. C. As per MLC report of Anand Pratap, he sustained the following injuries : (i) 1. Contusion 6 cm x 2 cm. Right and left buttock hard and blunt. Simple. (ii) One contusion only. 9. In view of the aforesaid MLC and X-ray reports, any of the injuries sustained by the victim Amar Singh, could not be treated to be sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course of the nature and I am of the view that unless any of the alleged injury of the victims falls under any of the category of the earlier part of section 300 of Indian Penal Code, defines culpable homicide amounting to murder, the charge of section 307 of Indian Penal Code could not be framed and in such premises, on examining the case looking to the nature of the alleged injuries as stated above, the charge of section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code framed by the trial Court is not sustainable. Pursuant to it, the same is hereby set aside. 10. It is apparent from the aforesaid discussions that victim Amar Singh-complainant except one grievous injury the fracture of 1st metacarpal of right hand had sustained all other injuries simple in nature by the alleged incident act of applicants along with the other co-accused in furtherance of their common object. Thus, looking to the nature of injuries of this victim, I do not find any error or perversity in the order of the trial Court in framing the charge of section 333/149 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant. So such charge is hereby affirmed. 11. Thus, looking to the nature of injuries of this victim, I do not find any error or perversity in the order of the trial Court in framing the charge of section 333/149 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant. So such charge is hereby affirmed. 11. So far as the charge of section 332/149 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims Constables Arvind and Anand Pratap, which are described to be simple in nature, in their MLC reports, the trial Court has not committed any error in framing such charge of section 332/149 of Indian Penal Code. So, the same does not require any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 12. It is made clear that the offence of section 332 of Indian Penal Code being minor offence than section 333 of Indian Penal Code, no separate charge of section 332 of Indian Penal Code with respect of some other injuries of Amar Singh-complainant, which is stated by the doctor to be simple in nature, is required because, on appreciation of evidence on arising the occasion by virtue of section 222 of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants may be convicted for the injuries either simple or grievous or both under the charge of section 333 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the charge of section 333/149 of Indian Penal Code framed against the applicants are hereby affirmed. 13. So far as the other charges framed by the trial Court against the applicants are concerned, I have not found any perversity either in the impugned order or in the framed charges requiring any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. So such charges are hereby affirmed. 14. Under the aforesaid premises, by affirming the charges framed by the trial Court under sections 147, 148, 333/149, 332/149 (two counts) and 294 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(v) of the Act, this revision is allowed in part and the charges framed against the applicants for the offence under sections 307/149, 186/149 and section 353/149 of Indian Penal Code are hereby set aside. It is made clear that the findings of setting aside the charge of sections 186/149 and 353/149 of Indian Penal Code shall not be deemed that the applicants are entitled for extending the acquittal under such sections or under sections 333/149 and 332/149 of Indian Penal Code as such, the trial Court shall be at liberty to adjudicate the matter independently, on appreciation of the evidence also keeping in view the provision of section 222 of Criminal Procedure Code. Till this extent, the impugned order and the charges framed by the trial Court are hereby modified while the other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. Revision is allowed in part as indicated above.