Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 228 (MP)

Suresh Sharma v. State of M. P.

2017-02-13

S.K.AWASTHI

body2017
ORDER 1. The applicants/accused assailing the order dated 28.6.2016 by which the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna has framed the charges punishable under sections 341, 294, 506 Part-II, 324/34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), 1860 against the present applicants, have filed this revision application. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present case are that the applicants are accused of inflicting grievous injuries on the complainants namely Umesh Pratap Singh, Dipika Shukla, Sita Shukla and Babita Shukla, due to which an FIR was registered by Police Station Cantt., District Guna against the present applicants for commission of offences indicated above. 3. The basis of framing the charge under section 307 of IPC is the injury sustained by Ms. Dipika Shukla on the frontal region of scalp. Apart from it, Smt. Sita Shukla has also complained of injury on her skull. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has invited attention of this Court to the medical reports prepared by the Radiologist of District Hospital, Guna, in which a categorical observation has been made that, “no bony injury seen in skull”, meaning thereby that the applicants cannot be attributed with the intention of committing culpable homicide amounting to murder. Therefore, it is submitted that the trial Court erred in framing of charge under section 307 of IPC. Apart from it, the ingredients of other offences framed against the applicants are also absent. 5. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent emphasized on the fact that the injuries are present on the head of the complainants Ms. Dipika Shukla and Sita Shukla which is enough for attributing intention on part of the applicants. Therefore, the impugned order does not deserve any interference. 6. After perusal of the record placed alongwith the case and considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court committed error in framing of charges punishable under section 307 of IPC against the applicants as the injuries are not grievous in nature and the opinion of the doctor does not give an impression that the injuries inflicted on the skull were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. However, with respect to the other offences charged against the applicants, suffice it to observe that at the stage of framing charges, an elaborate inquiry into truthfulness of the fact cannot be done, although at the same time, the Court cannot be a mere spectator or a mouthpiece of the prosecution. In this regard, the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 , is relevant which is reproduced as under:- “12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial [See Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal).” 7. Taking the said view of the matter, the instant revision application is allowed in part and the applicants are discharged from the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. However, with respect to the other offences the trial shall continue as per law. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary action.