Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 60 (MP)

Umesh Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-01-14

ALOK VERMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. This common order shall govern the disposal of Criminal Revisions No.162/2014 and 246/2014 as they arise from the same incident resulting into two separate cases counter to each other. 2. According to the prosecution story, the incident took place on 2.6.2012 at about 6.30 a.m. The genesis of the incident is stated to be minor collision of bike of son of the complainant Dashrath Singh with that of a police official. The dispute arose between the policeman and the son of complainant. At that movement, the present accused, who were six in number, reached the spot to support the police official. They also inflicted injuries on complainant Dashrath, his brother Chandrabhan Singh, his son Umendra Singh and his uncle Nirbhay Singh. They also tried to drag them to Bolero vehicle, in which, they reached the village by showing them service revolver. On listening hue and cry of the incident, other villagers also came on the spot. It is alleged that with the help of them, the complainants overpowered the police party, snatched the revolver from accused Pradeep Chouhan, which was later handed over to Station in-Charge, Police Station – Cantt. On the basis of the complaint lodged by villagers, the Police Station – Bherugarh, Neemuch registered Crime No.130/2012 under sections 323, 506, 307/34 of IPC against the police personnel, who were six in number. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. The police personnel also filed a complaint against the villagers stating therein that when they went to village for search of the person, against whom, warrant was issued, they were attacked by the villagers and they were wrongfully confined. On their complaint, Crime No.131/2012 under sections 147, 149, 323, 342, 506, 353 and 333 of IPC was registered. After investigation, two separate charge-sheets were filed before the concerning Magistrate, who committed the cases to the Court of Session. Being counter to each other, the cases were made over to First Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch. 4. Learned 1st ASJ by impugned order dated 15.1.2014 in Criminal Revision No.162/2014 heard both the parties on the question of framing of charges and found that prima facie offences under sections 147, 148, 307 in alternative 307/149, 323 in alternative 323/149 (five counts), 342 of IPC are made out. Accordingly, learned ASJ framed seven charges which are similar in nature against the six accused persons. 5. Accordingly, learned ASJ framed seven charges which are similar in nature against the six accused persons. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Criminal Revision No.162/2014 was filed on the ground that in x-ray report, no bony injury was found in the scull of injured Dashrath Singh and therefore, offence under section 307 of IPC is not made out inter alia and also that charge No.5 which is common to all the accused was not based on the facts of the case as Akhatabai, Jinat and Shamina are not injured persons in the present case and similarly, Chand Mohd, Mohd Parvej and Kalu are not co-accused in the present case. It is also argued that at the time of the incident, the police personnel were on duty and therefore, cognizance cannot be taken against them as bar under section 197 of CrPC is created. 6. In Criminal Revision No.246/2014 is filed against the impugned order dated 15.1.2014, by which, learned ASJ found that prima facie offence under sections 147, 342, 323 in alternative 323 read with sections 149, 506 of IPC are made out against the present applicant, This revision is filed on the ground inter alia that offence under sections 353 and 333 of IPC was registered initially and however, the learned Additional Sessions Judge not framed the charge under these sections. The police personnel were on official duty and therefore, they were obstructed while performing their official duty, and as such, the charge under sections 353 and 333 of IPC should also be framed. It is also argued that in this case, the police personnel suffered grievous injury, which were dangers to life and therefore, the charge under section 307 of IPC should also be framed. 7. In Criminal Revision No.162/2014, photocopies of the complaint and the charge-sheet are filed. On page 119, x-ray report is available which shows that there is no bony injury on the scull of Dashrath Singh. Apart from the injuries on his head, he suffered injury on his left arm and on his waist, Nirbhay Singh suffered a crush injury on his neck and Chandrabhan Singh also suffered minor injury. Though one of the accused was carrying his service revolver during the incident, the same was not used as fire arm. It is alleged that butt was used to inflict injury on Darashrath Singh. Though one of the accused was carrying his service revolver during the incident, the same was not used as fire arm. It is alleged that butt was used to inflict injury on Darashrath Singh. Apart from the revolver, it is alleged that hockey stick was used to inflict injury on the complainant. Taking all the nature of injuries, it is clear that force with which the injuries were caused, was not intended to cause grievous injury. No bony injury was found and therefore, the charge under section 307 of IPC is not made out. 8. So far as the arguments in respect of charge No.5 is concerned, after going through the copies of the charge-sheet, it is clear that these persons are not injured in the present case and those stated to be the accused, are also not the accused in the present case. It appears that due to some clerical/typographical error, this lapse has taken place. 9. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No.162/2014 is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.1.2014 and the charge framed in compliance thereof are set aside. The matter is remanded back to concerning Court with direction that it should re-consider the framing of charge in light of the observations made hereinabove in respect of section 307 of IPC and also take into consideration, whether police personnel were on duty and bar created by section 197 of CrPC applies in this particular case. 10. Coming to Criminal Revision No.246/2014, I find that the case was initially registered under sections 353 and 333 of IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered, whether the police personnel were on duty and therefore, Criminal Revision No.246/2014 is also allowed. The impugned order dated 15.1.2014 and the charge framed in compliance thereof are also set aside. It is directed that learned Additional Sessions Judge to take into consideration, whether the police personnel were on official duty and charge under sections 333 and 353 of IPC are made out. 11. It is needless to say that in case, learned Judge found after due consideration that all the charges are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, he may take recourse as per the provision of section 228 of CrPC. 12. With this directions and observations, Criminal Revisions No.162/2014 and 246/2014 stand disposed of. Nilesh Dave for applicants; L. L. Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate for respondent/State; Gaurav Verma for respondents No.2 to 6.