Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1073 (MP)

Chandrabhan Singh @ Kalu v. State of M. P.

2017-10-10

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2017
ORDER 1. This criminal revision under sections 397 and 401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 32/2017 by which charges under sections 294, 341, 147, 326/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 506 Part II of IPC have been framed. 2. Challenging the correctness and proprietory of the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the trial Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants, that the trial Court has wrongly framed charge under section 326/149 of IPC. 3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the complainant Gajendra Singh Thakur lodged a FIR on 20.10.2016 at 21:45 to the effect that at about 17:00, he was cultivating the fields with the help of the tractor. At that time, the accused persons/applicants came there and asked him not to cultivate the land as it belongs to them. When the complainant replied that the land belongs to him, then he was dragged down from the tractor and Umendra gave an axe blow on the right hand which landed below his elbow joint. One lathi blow was caused by Gopal Singh which landed on right side of his face. Surajbhan assaulted him by fists and blows. When his brother Pushpendra, father Malkhan and mother Savindi Bai tried to intervene in the matter, they too were assaulted by them. On the complaint of the complainant Gajendra, the police registered the FIR and filed the charge sheet after completing the investigation. 4. The trial Court by order dated 9.2.2017, apart from other charges, also framed charge under section 326/149 of IPC on the allegation that an injury was caused on the right hand of the complainant below the elbow which had caused fracture also. 5. A solitary ground was raised by the counsel for the applicants that according to the complainant, the applicant Umendra Singh had caused injury by means of an axe whereas lacerated wound was found, therefore, the allegations of causing injury below the elbow of the right hand of the complainant is either false or it was caused by an hard and blunt object, therefore, charge under section 325/149 of IPC should have been framed but the charge under section 326/149 of IPC is not made out. 6. 6. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that what would be the effect of discrepancy in the ocular and medical evidence can be seen by the trial Court after recording the evidence of witnesses. Even otherwise, if a person has been charged for a serious offence, then he can be convicted for lesser offence but not vice versa, therefore, no irregularity has been committed by the trial Court. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The solitary argument has been advanced by the counsel for the applicants that no offence under section 326 of IPC is made out for causing grievous injury to the complainant Gajendra because the use of axe is prima facie not corroborated by the medical evidence. So far the discrepancy in the medical and ocular evidence is concerned, it is a matter of evidence which shall be decided by the trial Court after recording the evidence and tested by cross-examination. At this stage, even if a person is charged for a serious offence, then no prejudice is going to be caused to him, because he can always be punished for a lesser offence. Even otherwise, at this initial stage, it would not be proper on the part of the Superior Court to give any finding as it may adversely affect the case of either of the party. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion, that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court by framing charge under section 326/149 of CrPC. Hence, the order dated 9.2.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No.32/2017 is hereby affirmed. 10. Consequently, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed.