Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 214 (MP)

K. B. Singh v. State of M. P.

2013-02-20

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. 2. The applicant has challenged the order dated 31.8.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Anuppur in special case No.41/2011, whereby the charges of offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as the 'Special Act') alongwith other charges were framed against the applicant. 3. For consideration of the present revision, the prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 3.2.2011, the victim Tullu was cutting a tree, which was in the land of the applicant and therefore, the applicant prohibited him to cut the tree. Thereafter, the applicant scuffled with the complainant and snatched his small axe. Thereafter, he assaulted the victim Tullu by back of that small axe, causing him injuries on his right knee and back. Other accused persons also participated in the crime, whereas, eye witnesses saved the complainant. The victim Tullu went to the Police Station Bijuri. He was sent for his medico legal examination at Primary Health Center, Bijuri. It was found that there was a lacerated wound on his right leg near the knee, whereas, tenderness was found on his back. The victim was taken to the hospital at Manendragarh and a report was received from that hospital that he sustained a commuted fracture of Tibiya and Fibula in right leg and also of right 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no reason to assess that he committed the assault upon the complainant on the basis of the caste and therefore, no offence punishable under section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act shall be made out. In support of his contention, he referred the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of “Masumsha Hasansha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra”, [ (2000) 3 SCC 557 ] and judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of “Amir Vs. State of M.P.”, [(2004) (3) M.P.L.J. 140]. It is also submitted that no offence under section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant because the applicant was never intended to kill the victim. 5. State of Maharashtra”, [ (2000) 3 SCC 557 ] and judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of “Amir Vs. State of M.P.”, [(2004) (3) M.P.L.J. 140]. It is also submitted that no offence under section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant because the applicant was never intended to kill the victim. 5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that initially the applicant had no weapon with him. When he saw the complainant, who was cutting the tree, he snatched the small axe of the complainant himself and thereafter, he did not assault the victim by sharp edge of the weapon but, he assaulted the victim by blunt edge of the axe. However, he gave only two strokes to the victim and therefore, only two injuries were found to the victim. One injury was caused on the right leg whereas, leg is not a vital part of the body. Similarly, second injury was caused on the back and four ribs of the victim were found broken on the back. It is no where stated in any medical report that any vital part like liver, kidney, lungs etc. were damaged due to that assault. The applicant did not repeat the assault on any vital part of the body. He gave only one stroke on the vital part of the body and it is not given with such a force that it could be said that the applicant was intended to kill the victim. Under such circumstances, neither the victim sustained any fatal injury, nor the applicant was intended to kill the victim. The case of the applicant does not fall within the purview of section 300 of IPC and therefore, no offence punishable under section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant. At the most, charge of offence punishable under section 325 of IPC could be framed. Offence punishable under section 325 of IPC is punishable for a period of 7 years imprisonment, which does not fall within the purview of section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act. Hence, no offence punishable under section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act is made out against the applicant. Consequently, no such charge could be framed against the applicant. 6. Hence, no offence punishable under section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act is made out against the applicant. Consequently, no such charge could be framed against the applicant. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the learned Special Judge has committed an error in framing charges under section 307 of IPC and section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act and therefore, it is a fit case, in which an interference is required from the side of this Court by way of a revision. 7. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The order dated 31.8.2012 is hereby set aside for limit up to the framing of charges under section 307 or 307 read with section 149 of IPC and section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act against all the accusedq. The applicant is discharged from the charge of offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The trial Court is directed to consider as to whether the case is exclusively triable by the Special Court or the Sessions Court otherwise, the trial Court shall pass an order under section 228 of the Cr.P.C. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.