Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 324 (MP)

Indar Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-03-19

SHEEL NAGU

body2012
Judgment Heard. This M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeks quashment of the order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No.339/2011 framing charge under Section 307/149 of IPC after rejecting the application for discharge filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The challenge to the framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC is primarily based on the ground that since no incised wound was inflicted by the accused-petitioners and all the injuries sustained by Kumer Singh are simple in nature coupled with the fact that a counter-case alleging offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC has been registered against the complainants, the framing of charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners is unwarranted for being an act of vendetta. 3. Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of Peerushah alias Peer Mohammad & Anr. Vs. State of MP reported in 2006 (II) MPJR 368 to contend that absence of corroboration of the overt act of knife blow with the medical evidence renders framing of charge u/S.307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 unsustainable in law. Another decision of Prabhu Dayal and another Vs. State of MP reported in 2004 Cri. L. J. 2990 has been cited to contend that causing of axe blows from the blunt side resulting in simple injury will not justify framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC. 4. The factual matrix elicited from reading of the FIR is that the accused-petitioners alongwith other co-accused with an intent to commit murder assaulted Kumer Singh on the head with pharsi leading to a lacerated wound measuring 6 x 1.5 cm on the left parieto temporal region as per the MLC of injured Kumer Singh. The Doctor on the very same day when MLC was prepared, certified that the said injury was dangerous to life as injured Kumer Singh was unable to speak and therefore was referred to the District Hospital, Guna for better treatment. 5. It is common knowledge that a pharsi, which is a weapon with sharp cutting edge, if used from the sharp edged side, will in all probability cause an incised wound. 5. It is common knowledge that a pharsi, which is a weapon with sharp cutting edge, if used from the sharp edged side, will in all probability cause an incised wound. Since a lacerated wound has been inflicted on the head of injured Kumer Singh by the accused-petitioners, it is quite possible that the blunt side of the said weapon was used to assault Kumer Singh on his head. The documents on record do not indicate as to whether any X-ray was conducted and, therefore it cannot be ascertained at this point of time as to whether any fracture was sustained or not? 6. The infliction of a lacerated wound by the blunt side of pharsi at first blush appears to entitle the petitioners to the benefit of the case law reported in 2004 Cri. L.J.2990, wherein in ostensibly similar set of circumstances, the Court held that framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC was unsustainable. 7. The factual matrix available in the present case is not identical to the factual matrix attending the case reported in 2004 Cri. L.J.2990. The distinguishing feature, which stands out in the present case, is the certification of the medical authority that the injury on the head sustained by Kumer Singh was dangerous to life. A reading of the decision in the case of Prabhu Dayal and another Vs. State of MP reported in 2004 Cri. L. J. 2990 indicates that no such material was available about the injury being dangerous to life in that case and, therefore the said case of Prabhu Dayal is distinguishable on facts and thus of no avail to the petitioners. 8. Further reliance has been placed on the decision of Bhanwar & Anr. Vs. State of MP reported in 2011 Cr.L.R. (MP) 493 and the case of Chandrabhan & Ors. Vs. State of MP reported in 2011 Cr.L.R. (MP) 314. 9. From a perusal of the abovesaid decisions of Bhanwar and Chandrabhan, it is seen that the said cases are further distinguishable on facts as the Court in the said cases was considering the sustainability of the evidence and material on record for the purpose of conviction/acquittal and not for the purpose of discharge. Thus, the said two cases are further not relevant to the factual matrix of the present case. 10. Thus, the said two cases are further not relevant to the factual matrix of the present case. 10. Before parting, it is essential to deal with the reliance placed by the petitioners on the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 310 in support of the contention that while exercising power of discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Judge should discharge the accused if, on the given facts and circumstances, two prima-facie views are equally possible and evidence gives rise to some suspicion but not a grave one. The facts that are available in the instant case specially the allegation of assaulting with an intent to commit murder as mentioned in the FIR corroborated by the injury inflicted on the head which is certified as dangerous to life, there is no occasion for existence of two equal views. The evidence collected by the prosecution on a prima-facie basis at this stage leaves no scope for doubt that there is only one view raising grave suspicion of commission of offence alleged against the accused. 11. From the facts and material available on record, it is crystal clear that the framing of charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 of attempting to murder, for which the allegations in the FIR categorically exist alongwith the certificate of the Medical Authority of the injury being dangerous to life, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is called for with the impugned order of framing charge under Section 307 of IPC, which is, thus, upheld. Consequently, this M.Cr.C. deserves to be and therefore dismissed without any order as to costs.