Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1073 (MP)

Toran Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-08-27

B.D.RATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 preferred by the petitioners-accused is directed against an order dated 26/9/2012 passed in S.T. No. 3/2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge Ganjbasoda, district Vidisha, framing charge against accused/petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/149 of I.P.C. 2. The facts, in short, just for the decision of this revision are that on 7/11/2011 at around 11 o'clock, in the noon, in village Karonda at the field of Khurd Teliwala the accused-petitioners after having armed with deadly weapons like farsa, luhangi, axe rushed to the field and restrained the complainant Rajesh from ploughing and on being objected the complainant Rajesh and his father Bhawani Singh Raghuvanshi were caused grievous injuries by the accused-petitioners with their respective weapons. On report, Crime No. 227/11 was registered against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under sections 294, 324, 451, 506/34 of I.P.C. On committal, the session trial was commenced and charges, as mentioned above, have been framed against the petitioners/accused by the learned trial Judge, hence this revision. 3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that on perusal of the FIR and the medical reports of the injured, no case for framing of charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. against the petitioners is made out. It is submitted that the injured have sustained simple injuries and no such grievous injuries have been caused by the accused-petitioners which were in either way dangerous to their lives. Apart the aforesaid, it is also pointed out that earlier charge-sheet were filed against the same petitioners for offence under sections 326, 324, 452, 294 and 506/34 of I.P.C. and the learned trial court also framed the charges for the alleged offence vide order dated 26/6/12 but subsequently on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet, offence under section 307/149 of I.P.C. was aided and accordingly charge has been framed, which is against the settled principles of law. Hence, it is prayed that by allowing the revision, the accused-petitioners be discharged of the alleged offence under Section 307/149 of I.P.C. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposed the aforesaid prayer and supported the impugned order of framing of charge by the trial court. It is therefore prayed that the revision petition of the petitioners be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposed the aforesaid prayer and supported the impugned order of framing of charge by the trial court. It is therefore prayed that the revision petition of the petitioners be dismissed. 5. Now, this court has to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the order challenged in the revision. 6. As regards the argument advanced on the point that the investigating agency is refrained from making further investigation and submitting supplementary challan/additional report, this argument is without any substance. 7. Sub-section (8) of section 173 of Cr.P.C. is based on the necessity to confer express power on the police to make further investigation and submit supplemental reports. Thus, whenever fresh facts occur to the police resulting in further investigation, it is the duty of the police to send a supplemental report based on such material to the Magistrate. The power of the Investigating Agency to investigate and submit further report is well recognized by this provision. For re-investigation no further permission/sanction is required from the court. Reference in this respect is made to a Division decision of this court rendered in the case of Prashant Pathak & Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010(2) MPHT 57. 8. Now, the next question for consideration is whether the learned trial Judge was justified in framing the charge for the offence under Section 307/149 of I.P.C. against the petitioners-accused? 9. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the parties, it would be useful to reproduce section 307 of I.P.C. It reads as under:- "307. Attempt to murder.-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. 10. Thus, the point crops up for consideration is whether the injuries caused by the present accused-petitioners would amount to an offence to commit attempt to murder, punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C.? 11. Vide order dated 27th of August, 2014 passed in Cri. Rev. 10. Thus, the point crops up for consideration is whether the injuries caused by the present accused-petitioners would amount to an offence to commit attempt to murder, punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C.? 11. Vide order dated 27th of August, 2014 passed in Cri. Rev. No. 532/12, it is held by this court that no offence is made out under section 326 of I.P.C., eventually for injured Rajesh, it has been directed that charges against the petitioners/accused may be framed for offence under Sections 324and 325 read with 149 of I.P.C. alongwith other charges framed for offence offence under Sections 294, 148 and 506 Part-II of I.P.C. Similar direction has been given for framing of charges against the petitioners for causing injuries to injured Bhawani Singh. 12. Obviously, in order to constitute an offence under section 307 of I.P.C., the intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Such intention is to be gathered from the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body where the injuries are inflicted. On examining the case from all the angles, it is found that the injuries inflicted on the persons of the victims though were reported to be incised wounds but according to medical evidence were simple in nature as no fractures were noticed by the doctor on any vital part. It is delineated from examination of the injuries reports that the accused were not intended to cause any such injury which may either be endangered to the lives of the injured or may be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Hence, the ingredient to establish the offence of "attempt to murder" is lacking from the charge sheet and the material on record. 13. In this view of the matter, the learned trial court has committed an illegality in framing the charge against the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. 14. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed and the order dated 26/9/2012 passed in S.T. No. 3/2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge Ganjbasoda, district Vidisha, framing charge against accused/petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/149 of I.P.C. stands set aside. 15. It is made clear that directions have already been issued in Cri. Rev. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed and the order dated 26/9/2012 passed in S.T. No. 3/2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge Ganjbasoda, district Vidisha, framing charge against accused/petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/149 of I.P.C. stands set aside. 15. It is made clear that directions have already been issued in Cri. Rev. No. 532/12 vide order dated 27/8/14, therefore, the case be remanded as per the order of this court mentioned above to the appropriate court for framing of charges and trial under Sections 324, 325 read with section 149 of I.P.C. alongwith other charges framed under Sections 294, 148 and 506 Part-II of I.P.C. 16. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for necessary compliance.