Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 229 (ALL)

RAHUL @ BHURA v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-01-25

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and perused the records. The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 13.12.2011 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Case No. 1894 of 2011 summoned the revisionists under Section 307 I.P.C. to face the trial. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 4.2.2011 at about 4 p.m. the revisionists came on a tractor armed with tamancha and lathi. They had assaulted the complainant’s father Raj Kumar with lathi and one accused Rahul @ Bhura had fired with his pistol at him, which hit on his leg. The first information report was lodged at about 6.20 p.m. on the same day under Sections 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. as case Crime No. 67 of 2011. Prior to the lodging of the first information report the injured was taken to the District Hospital where he was medically examined at about 4.30 p.m. where the doctor found the gun shot entry and exit wound below the right knee and contusion on the left shoulder caused by hard blunt object. The investigation was entrusted to the Investigating Officer but on account of perfunctory investigation by him the matter was handed over to the S.I.S. who submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The charges were framed under Sections 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and the revisionists were stood for trial. The statements of the complainant was recorded as P.W.1 who has categorically supported about the complicity of the accused/revisionists and has reiterated the prosecution case as mentioned in the first information report. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the statement of the complainant was recorded on 9.11.2011 and an application on the same day was moved by the complainant that prima facie offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is also made out against the revisionists hence they may also be prosecuted under Section 307 I.P.C. The Court below has allowed the said application by the impugned order dated 13.12.2011. 4. Further submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that medical report is not corroborating with the prosecution case as no such incident has ever taken place as the witnesses have stated that no such incident had taken place and the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on the basis of the injury report. 4. Further submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that medical report is not corroborating with the prosecution case as no such incident has ever taken place as the witnesses have stated that no such incident had taken place and the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on the basis of the injury report. No offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists. The fire-arm inquiry has been fabricated could not have been received as alleged by the prosecution. The injury is on non-vital part and according to doctor’s opinion injuries are simple in nature. The Court below has passed the order in the absence of any additional evidence hence the order passed by the Court below is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has contended that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In the first information report one of the named accused has been specifically assigned the role of causing injury with the fire-arm weapon and the medical report also supports the prosecution case about the fire-arm injury suffered by the complainant’s father at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out under Section 307 I.P.C. hence this revision has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionists at length. From the bare perusal of the first information report and the injury report it cannot be said that no offence is made out under Section 307 I.P.C. as the accused revisionist Rahul @ Bhura is said to have fired at the complainant’s father who sustained injury on his knee. To justify an act under Section 307 I.P.C. it would not be essential that bodily injury capable of causing death must have been inflicted, Court has to see whether the act irrespective of its result was done with intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in section, therefore, the Court below has rightly passed the order summoning the revisionists to face trial under Section 307 I.P.C. At this stage no finding can be given that no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of simple hurt. The order passed by the Court below at this stage calls for no interference, hence the revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. 7. However, it is directed that the revisionists shall appear and surrender before the Court below within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided, if possible on the same day keeping in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004(4) ESC 2321 (All)(FB) as well as judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). Any observations made herein above would not effect the mind of the trial judge while deciding the case. ——————