Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1070 (MP)

Sukhvinder Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-10-07

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. This revision under sections 397, 401 of CrPC has been directed against the order dated 2.4.2014 passed in S.T. No.7/2014 (State of M.P. v. Sukhvinder Singh and others) for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 294, 324 (three counts) and in alternative 324/149 (three counts), 307 (two counts) in alternative 307 r/w 149 (two counts) of IPC and section 3 (1)(x) and section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Datia. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that : the complainant Dharmendra along with injured persons lodged a report at Police Station, Sinaval District Datia that Sanjiv had gone to Datia to bring medicines. Sanjeev had an altercation with Gopi @ Gurupreet. He abused Sanjeev by obscene words. Sanjeev informed this to his father after he returned to home. Father of accused Gopi @ Gurupreet, Sukhvinder, brother Balvindar @ Pappi and his family members armed with swords came to the house of complainant. They abused them by obscene words. When Ramkumar tried to stop them, Gopi @ Gurupreet with intent to kill inflicted a blow by sword to Ramkumar on his head and blood was oozed out. When Mamta tried to intervene, accused Shukvinder with intent to kill her gave a blow by sword. Mamta also sustained injury. When the father of the complainant tried to save them, Balvinder inflicted injury to him by sword on the head. When Sanjeev tried to save them, the accused Ladi also inflicted injury by sword, due to which Sanjeev sustained injury on the palm of his right hand. When complainant tried to save them, the accused Angrej also inflicted injury. The complainant sustained injury on his left hand. At that time, Parasram Jatav, Rampraksh Jatav saw the incident. All the accused persons threatened the complainant party and left. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 294, 324 (three counts) and in alternative 324/149 (three counts), 307 (two counts) in alternative 307 read with 149 (two counts) of IPC and under section 3 (1)(x) and section 3 (2)(v) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 before the Special Judge Atrocities Act, Datia. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the petitioners. 4. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the petitioners. 4. In this background, the petitioners/accused have come up with this revision, challenging that prima facie offence under section 307 of IPC and offence under section SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 are not made out against the petitioners. 5. Considered and perused the police diary. 6. MLC report of Dharmendra shows that he sustained injury on his left palm which is simple in nature, which is caused by hard and blunt object. MLC report of Smt. Mamta shows that incised wound bone deep bleeding caused by sharp and hard object and incised wound on the left elbow joint caused by sharp and hard object. X-ray of the skull was advised. Dev Singh also sustained injury which is lacerated wound on the top of skull, lacerated wound on the right shoulder, one abrasion on the right wrist joint. There injuries are caused by hard and blunt object, which are simple in nature. Injured Ramkumar also sustained injury on the skull, which is 4×1×1 cm incised wound by hard and sharp object, x-ray was advised. Besides, he also received lacerated wound on the right wrist joint and one abrasion on the left thigh caused by hard and blunt object. Injured Sanjeev also received incised wound on the right index finger caused by sharp object and one incised wound on elbow joint by sharp object and another wound be sword below the left eye caused by hard and blunt object. 7. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance has been placed on Rekha Mandal and others v. The State of Bihar, reported in 1967 CAR 108 (SC), in which it held that, if injuries are not dangerous to life and evidence not disclosing who wielded which weapon offence does not go beyond section 324 of IPC. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State argued that the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges looking into the injuries caused to the complainant party and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 9. As has been observed that the injuries have been received by the complainant party, on the head which is a vital part by sharp cutting object allegedly sword. The citation which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is after the evidence was adduced. 10. 9. As has been observed that the injuries have been received by the complainant party, on the head which is a vital part by sharp cutting object allegedly sword. The citation which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is after the evidence was adduced. 10. For the purpose to bring home the offence under section 307 of IPC, it requires that the act must be done with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if death be caused by that act, the offence of murder will emerge. In the present case, on the evidence of MLC, it is evident that injury has been received on the vital part that is on head by deadly weapon ie sword. The Court should judge the murderous assault from the act of the accused, the manner in which it was executed, the surrounding circumstances as also the result achieved together with intention of the accused. Judge should not judge the matter one-sided, i.e., the point of result-orientation. The law on the other hand, enjoins on him a duty to examine such a case intent – oriented. The intention of the accused may be gathered from the nature of the weapon, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted, the nature of injury inflicted, and the opportunity available which the accused gets. 11. At the time of framing of charge, the meticulous examination of evidence is not required. The Court has to see that whether material brought on record would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. At the time of framing of charge, the prima facie test has to be applied. If there is ground of presuming that the accused has committed the offence the Court is justifiable to see that prima facie case against him. The probative value of material on record cannot be gone into. The material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at this stage. 12. Regarding offence under section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, it is to be considered that the incident took place on a dispute between Sanjeev and Dev Singh. Subsequently, this incident become aggravated. There seems to be no intention of the accused persons to insult or humiliate the complainant party in public view. 12. Regarding offence under section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, it is to be considered that the incident took place on a dispute between Sanjeev and Dev Singh. Subsequently, this incident become aggravated. There seems to be no intention of the accused persons to insult or humiliate the complainant party in public view. It was not the case in which the accused person knowing that the complainant party are the members of SC /ST have committed the such crime. It was sudden fight and in the FIR there is no utterance of any caste abuse. 13. That being so, the revision against framing of charge in view of law laid down in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 2008 SC (supply) 634, is partly allowed. The charge framed by the learned Special Judge under section 3(1) (x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, vide order dated 2.6.2014 is set aside to such extent. 14. It is made clear that so far as charges punishable under sections 147, 148, 294, 324 (three counts) and in alternative 324/149 (three counts), 307 (two counts) in alternative 307 read with section 149 (two counts) of IPC are concerned, the petition is dismissed.