Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1352 (MP)

Manish Sahu v. State Of M. P.

2014-10-16

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
ORDER : Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S. S. Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. State counsel submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. Heard. 2. On behalf of the applicant, this revision is preferred under section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 5-3-2014 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.560/2011 framing the charges against him for the offence punishable under sections 294, 307 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Applicant's counsel after taking me through the impugned order along with copy of the charge-sheet argued that initially the MLC report of one of the victims Arvind was prepared in the Government Hospital on dated 1-8-2011, according to which he sustained two incised wounds on his person but initially no definite opinion was given regarding the nature of the injuries and such victim was referred to the Victoria Hospital. The record of the Victoria Hospital in respect of such victim has not been produced along with the charge-sheet. As per further case of the prosecution, after referring the applicant to the Victoria Hospital, he went to some private hospital namely Pandey Hospital for further treatment and along with copy of the charge-sheet, Certificate obtained by the police from such Pandey Hospital is annexed and with respect of the injuries of Arvind, an opinion was obtained and same is placed with the charge-sheet. In continuation, he said that according to such certificate of private hospital, the injuries sustained by the victim Arvind were dangerous to life in nature. In continuation, he said that for giving such opinion, the Doctor has not given description of the alleged injuries, so also other particulars of the same on which it could be examined that the alleged injury was dangerous to life in nature. In continuation, he said that for giving such opinion, the Doctor has not given description of the alleged injuries, so also other particulars of the same on which it could be examined that the alleged injury was dangerous to life in nature. He also said that in the lack of papers of the Victoria Hospital, it could not be assumed that the applicant was not given any treatment in the Victoria Hospital and in the case of the victim Arvind being referred case from some other Government Hospital for further treatment, certainly some report regarding nature of the injuries was given by the Victoria Hospital but the same has been concealed by the prosecution in spite direction of the trial Court vide order dated 3-3-2012, the same has not been placed by the prosecution. So in the lack of such report of Victoria Hospital, mere on the basis of some Certificate of Pandey Hospital, the main charge under section 307 of Indian Penal Code could not have been framed by the trial Court against the applicant. In continuation, he said that on taking into consideration the averments of the FIR as well as MLC report of Arvind and other victim Shivam Sahu, this was not the case of more than section 324 of Indian Penal Code to frame the charge. With these submissions, he prayed to discharge the applicant from the charge of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by admitting and allowing this revision. 4. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments with the assistance of the case diary, State counsel submits that after preparing the MLC report of the victim Arvind at some hospital at Khamaria, at his request, he was referred from such hospital to Pandey Hospital and not to the Victoria Hospital and that is why the record of the Victoria Hospital was not filed either with the charge-sheet or at subsequent stage in compliance of the order of the trial Court dated 3-3-2012 because no such record was available in the Victoria Hospital. He further said that subsequent to filing the charge-sheet after obtaining the record of the bed-head ticket of victim Arvind from Pandey Hospital, the same was filed before the trial Court on 5-9-2011 along with some application, so in such premises, the trial Court has rightly framed charge of section 307 of Indian Penal Code also besides other charges. He further said that subsequent to filing the charge-sheet after obtaining the record of the bed-head ticket of victim Arvind from Pandey Hospital, the same was filed before the trial Court on 5-9-2011 along with some application, so in such premises, the trial Court has rightly framed charge of section 307 of Indian Penal Code also besides other charges. In continuation, he said that mere perusal of the FIR, the intention of the applicant is apparent that the alleged injury was caused to the victim Arvind by the present applicant and in such premises, he prayed that the impugned order framing the charges does not require any interference and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 5. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the case diary as well as the charge-sheet referred by the applicant's counsel. It is true, initially the impugned case was registered against the applicant and one other co-accused for the offence of sections 324, 294 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also apparent from the charge-sheet that initially after sustaining the injuries, victim Arvind and Shivam were medically examined by the Doctor of some Government Hospital at Khamaria and their MLC was prepared and looking to the nature of the injuries of victim Arvind, further treatment was required at some other hospital on which at the request of the victim, he was sent to Pandey hospital as stated in the MLC report itself. It is also undisputed that Arvind sustained two incised wounds on his person as stated in the MLC report on his lower back side, one was at the left side while another was on the right side. It also appears from the papers available in the charge-sheet that the applicant was remained in Pandey Hospital for treatment from 31-7-2011 to 12-8-2011 i.e. near about 13 days and during such period, the bed-head ticket was also maintained by such hospital and according to the injuries in the line of treatment at the initial stage of framing of charge, the opinion given by the Doctor at Pandey hospital in the certificate which was given in response of the query of the police that the injuries sustained by the victim Arvind were dangerous to life could not be questioned. It is settled proposition of law that from the papers of the charge-sheet, if prima facie circumstances are established with respect of the alleged offence, then there is no option left with the trial Court but to frame the charge of such section and proceed with the trial and after recording the evidence at the stage of appreciation of the same, the Court has authority to decide the veracity and sustainability of the documents filed with the charge-sheet. It is also settled proposition that at the stage of framing the charge, the version or the documents projected or filed on behalf of the defence could not be taken into consideration. The charge is always framed on the basis of available papers filed by the police along with police report under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is also settled proposition that at the time of framing charge, the Court is not required to consider the question whether after holding the trial the case would be culminated into conviction or not. So if the case in hand is examined then it is apparent that looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by victim Arvind as stated in his MLC report as well as bed-head ticket of Pandey hospital maintained while giving treatment to the victim, so also in view of the aforesaid certificate by which aforesaid injury was stated by the Doctor to be dangerous to life, I have not found any perversity, irregularity, illegality or anything against the propriety of law in the order impugned framing aforesaid charges against the applicant. 6. So in such premise, impugned order does not require any interference at this stage. Consequently, this revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is observed that what are objections and grounds raised by the applicant's counsel here, the applicant shall be at liberty to raise all such grounds in his defence at the appropriate stage in the trial and any observation or finding given in this order shall not come in the way of the applicant in defending the matter on the defence available to the applicant. 7. The revision is dismissed as indicated above.