Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1162 (MP)

Chetan Raghuvanshi v. State of M. P.

2013-09-25

G.S.SOLANKI

body2013
ORDER G.S. Solanki, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwara, District Chhindwara in S.T. No. 281/2012, whereby charge under Sections 147, 294, 341, 307/34 and 333 of the I.P.C. has been framed against this applicant and also against co-accused. Facts in short, are that on 17.07.2012, when complainant Radheshyam Raghuwanshi was going alongwith his colleague Lalit Malani in the vehicle Maruti Van No. 28-BD-1090. It is alleged that applicant and other co-accused persons restrained them on the way and took out Lalit Malani from the aforesaid vehicle. It is further alleged that applicant Chetan Raghuwanshi and co-accused Ajju Raghuwanshi were having iron rod in their hand and other co-accused persons were having wooden stick. Initially they abused Lalit Malani and thereafter they assaulted him with the intention to kill him by using the iron rod and sticks. Complainant Radheshyam tried to intervene them but accused persons threatened him for dire consequences and left injured Lalit assuming that he died and run away from the spot. 2. Police Station Chourai, District Chhindwara registered offence under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 294, 506 and 307 of the I.P.C. against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Injured Lalit was sent to the hospital and he has been treated. As per MLC report, the doctor has found as many as 12 injuries in different parts of his body like chest, back side, hands and legs and complaint of pain and swelling in other parts of the body. As per X-ray report, he sustained fracture in 4th and 5th proximal Phalanx. He was also treated in private hospital at Aditya Critical Care Emergency Centre, Nagpur, wherein he was treated and was found a fracture of 9th rib as well as 4th and 5th Proximal Carpel Right Hand. 3. Applicant and co-accused have been arrested. After usual investigation, they have been prosecuted before the committal court. The committal court in turn committed the case to the court of sessions and the same has been made over for trial to the trial Court. The trial Court has framed the charge as mentioned hereinabove, hence this revision. 4. 3. Applicant and co-accused have been arrested. After usual investigation, they have been prosecuted before the committal court. The committal court in turn committed the case to the court of sessions and the same has been made over for trial to the trial Court. The trial Court has framed the charge as mentioned hereinabove, hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial Court committed an illegality in framing a charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. against the applicant. Since none of these injuries have been found on the vital part of the body, therefore, intention of the applicant and co-accused was not to cause death to injured Lalit. He has also placed reliance on decision of this Court in Vardichand Vs. Rameshwar and others [ 2006(1) M.P.L.J. 388 ]. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned order. He further submitted that there was no fracture on the body of injured person in the case of Vardichand (supra), therefore, principle laid down in the aforesaid case is not applicable in this case. 6. I have perused the impugned order alongwith the record of the trial Court, wherein Lalit has sustained as many as 12 injuries. As per X-Ray report and discharge summary report given by the doctor of Aditya Critical Care Emergency Centre, Nagpur, wherein as many as three fractures have been found in the body of injured Lalit. It is true that none of the injuries were found on the head of injured Lalit, but at the same time, it is well established principle of law that number of injuries are not only the decisive factor in regard to offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. as observed by the Supreme Court in Bappu @ Bapu Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2004(4) M.P.L.J. 262], wherein it has held that:- The Court is to see whether the act in question, irrespective of its results, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in Section 307, it is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable to causing death should have been inflicted. It is not essential that bodily injury capable to 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, 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. 7. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, facts of this case is different from the facts of Vardichand (supra), wherein the injured person has not sustained any fracture in any part of his body. But in this case, the injured sustained as many as 12 injuries and 3 fractures in his body. Further, the intention must be gathered not only from the injuries but also from other materials on record, like statement of the witnesses and the weapon of offence used at the time of incident. In the present case, injured Lalit as well as other witnesses have stated in their statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that applicant and co-accused have assaulted injured Lalit with intention to kill him. It is on record that applicant and co-accused Ajju were having deadly weapon like iron rod and wooden sticks they mercilessly beaten injured Lalit by using deadly weapon and blunt weapon. In these circumstances, the nature of injury is immaterial for framing charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charge under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. alongwith other charges mentioned hereinabove. This revision being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.