Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1099 (MP)

Rajkumar Jain v. State of M. P.

2017-10-25

SHEEL NAGU

body2017
ORDER 1. Revisional powers of this Court are invoked under section 397 read with section 401 CrPC for assailing the framing of charge against petitioners who are three in number to the extent it pertains to section 307 of IPC. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the decision of apex Court in the case of Pashora Singh and another v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1256 , that in the given facts and circumstances where though assault was made on the head of injured Vikram caused by hard and blunt object i.e. pharsa, but the same has not been opined as dangerous to life and that no fracture was discovered in the radiological test. 3. Bare facts giving rise to present case are that on 28.1.2017, at 10:30 a.m. injured informant Vikram Singh informed that when the said informant was getting construction work done on the plot owned by his wife over which the petitioners lay claim, the petitioner Vijay and one Vikas came to the construction site and started claiming the ownership of the plot which was resisted by the informant. The said petitioner No.2 Vikas started hurling abuses and they were joined by one Jagdish Sahu who assaulted with an iron rod causing injury on the left arm of the informant. Thereafter, Vikas and petitioner No.2 Vijay pelted stones causing minor injuries on the chest and left hand of the informant. These persons were also joined by petitioner No. 3 Laxmi Chand Jain who also started hurling abuses. Thereafter it is reported that all these assailants together assaulted the informant with pharsa and iron rod. Krishnapal and Rambhan intervened. FIR alleging offences punishable under sections 294, 323 and 506 read with Sec 34 IPC was lodged on 28.1.2017 by the said informant. Thereafter necessary formalities of medical examination was conducted where the injured Vikram was found to have sustained four injuries including one incised wound on the parietal region of the skull besides two lacerated wounds and pain in the chest. The X-ray report did not disclose any bonny injury either on the skull or on any other part of the body. The statement under section 161 CrPC was recorded of various witnesses including the injured on 28.1.2017 in which the injured has specifically named Jagdish and Ajab Singh. The X-ray report did not disclose any bonny injury either on the skull or on any other part of the body. The statement under section 161 CrPC was recorded of various witnesses including the injured on 28.1.2017 in which the injured has specifically named Jagdish and Ajab Singh. The allegation of causing head injury by petitioner No.2 Vijay Jain and Vikas was alleged with further allegations against other co-accused of pelting stones and causing minor injuries. 3.1 On the basis of the above allegations, the Court has framed charge regarding offence inter alia under section 307 IPC of attempt to murder. 3.2 The charge of attempt to murder is less concerned with overt act and in fact is primarily concerned with the intention or the frame of mind with which the crime is committed. Presence of injury is not a pre-requisite for constitution of the basic ingredients of offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 4. Ostensibly, it may appear from the FIR that there is no direct allegation against the petitioners of assaulting the injured Vikram, but the fact remains that statements recorded under section 161 CrPC prima facie discloses that petitioners were present at the scene of crime and had participated in the assault, though they may not have caused the head injury. 5. Whether the main assailant had any intention to cause murder or not can be deciphered at the time of adducing of evidence. It is further not a case where only single blow has taken place as that may prima facie indicate lack of intention to commit murder. 6. The decision of apex Court in the case of Pashora Singh (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is of no avail since in the said case, the apex Court has dealt with the legality and validity of conviction under section 307 IPC read with section 34 and not the validity of charge. 7. Petitioners have been charged with attempt to murder with the aid of section 149 IPC which cannot be found to be unlawful or beyond jurisdiction of the trial Court and therefore no case for interference is made out. 8. Consequently, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.