Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 400 (MP)

Ganesh Patel v. State of M. P.

2014-04-09

G.S.SOLANKI

body2014
ORDER 1. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicants prays for withdrawal of the petition. Since he has argued at length therefore, this Court is of the view that this matter should be disposed of on merits. 2. Heard. 3. This revision petition has been preferred by the applicants under section 397/401 of CrPC being aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2013 passed by Ist ASJ, Damoh in S.T.No. 211/2012 whereby trial Court has framed the charges under section 147, 294, 323/149, 307/149, 506 (2) of IPC. 4. Facts in short giving rise to the petition are that complainant Kamlesh has lodged a report at police station Patharia District Damoh that at about 4.00 O'clock he was sitting in school and his father Chandrabhan Patel was going near the canal then applicant Mitthu fired in air through a gun thereafter, applicant Dwarika armed with an axe and other applicants armed with lathis came there. Applicant Dwarika assaulted his father with intention to kill him by using an axe thereby his father sustained injury on his neck. Applicant Mitthu also assaulted his father by butt of the gun and other accused persons assaulted him by kick and fists. When complainant and other witnesses came to rescue then applicants fled away from the spot. On the basis of aforesaid report, an offence under section 323, 307, 294, 506/34 of IPC has been registered against the applicants. Injured person was sent for medical examination. After due investigation, applicants were charge sheeted before the JMFC, Patharia who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Sessions Judge committed the case to the Court of ASJ, who framed the charges as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. The injury sustained by injured was simple in nature. It is further submitted that only one injury said to have been caused during the incident therefore, no case is made out under section 307/149 of IPC. It is submitted that as per statement of Kamlesh, injured person Chandrabhan and other witness Santosh recorded by the trial Court, prima facie no case is made out under section 307/149 of IPC against the applicants. Under such circumstances, he prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.7.2013. 6. It is submitted that as per statement of Kamlesh, injured person Chandrabhan and other witness Santosh recorded by the trial Court, prima facie no case is made out under section 307/149 of IPC against the applicants. Under such circumstances, he prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.7.2013. 6. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order passed by Court below and prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. I have perused the case diary along with the statement of witnesses recorded before the trial Court. 8. Since after framing of the charge, the statements of all main witnesses have been recorded before the trial Court in these circumstances, if any statement is considered then it may amount to appreciation of evidence which is not permissible in exercising the jurisdiction of revision against the charge. It is well established principle of law that charge may be framed on the basis of strong suspicion on record and at the time of framing of charge there was ample material on record that applicants alongwith other co-accused person assaulted the injured in furtherance of common intention to kill him. In these circumstances, at the time of framing of charge there was a prima facie evidence against the applicants and trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing of the charge as mentioned hereinabove. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for making interference under revisional jurisdiction thus, petition is liable to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed on merits.