Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 303 (MP)

Inder Singh @ Inderbhan v. State of M. P.

2018-03-14

ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI

body2018
ORDER 1. This criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against order dated 18.1.2018 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Session Trial No. 200/2017 whereby charges for offence punishable under sections 148, 308 or 308/149 and 346 of the IPC have been framed against each petitioner as accused of relating trial. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that report regarding entry made at Sanha No. 3 of roznamcha dated 18.6.2017 was given for enquiry to SI Ramveer Singh Raghuvanshi of Police Station Badarwas, who in relating enquiry reached to Badarwas hospital, where injured Badal Singh s/o Preetam Singh Yadav aged 55 years, resident of Badarwas was found. The above mentioned Police Officer gave application for medial examination and on his application relating doctor gave opinion that injured Badal Singh is not in a fit condition to give any statement. Enquiry statement of Jandel Singh, who is brother of Badal Singh and others were taken on 19.6. 2017. The statement of injured Badal Singh was taken in surgical ward of District hospital Shivpuri, wherein he intimated that on 17.6. 2017 in the night of 10 pm a quarrel had occurred between him and present petitioners wherein his brother Jandel had intervened and thereafter he had slept in his khere, but in the same mid-night at 2 a.m. after pressing his mouth, he was lifted by petitioners from his khere and by Jeep he was taken to the field of Ramveer, where Inder Singh assaulted him by Pharsa on his head. Chote alias Arvind struck by an axe over his left cheek. Lallu assaulted by axe on his back and Rakesh and Kamar Jeet assaulted him by tega and thereafter he was tied up by rope and he was dropped in a well. Thereafter, he became unconscious. The relating Doctor R.L. Pippal posted at CHC Badarwas prepared MLC report of injured Badal Singh, wherein he opined that patient's life is in danger. After enquiry FIR was registered in reference to offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, and 346 of the IPC relating to Crime No. 140/2017 at Police Station Badarwas against all the six present petitioners. It appears that injured Badal Singh was advised for X-ray examination of his skull and back but according to X-ray report dated 18.6. After enquiry FIR was registered in reference to offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, and 346 of the IPC relating to Crime No. 140/2017 at Police Station Badarwas against all the six present petitioners. It appears that injured Badal Singh was advised for X-ray examination of his skull and back but according to X-ray report dated 18.6. 2017 of District Hospital Shivpuri, no any bony injury was found. A query letter dated 3.9. 2017 was sent by SHO of Police Station Badarwas to BMO of CHC Badarwas, who was replied by relating Doctor. During investigation, offence punishable under section 308 of the IPC was added and charge sheet was filed before relating JMFC, Badarwas against the petitioners in relation to offences punishable under sections 308, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 346 of the IPC. After committal of the case by the relating JMFC to the Sessions Court, vide order dated 18.1. 2018 passed in Session Trial No. 200/2017, the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge Shivpuri has framed charge for the offences punishable under sections 148, 308 or 308/150 and 346 of the IPC against each petitioner/accused which is under challenge in this criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial Court has not considered the material available on record before framing charges against the petitioners as no charge for offence punishable under sections 308 or 308/149 of the IPC was prima facie appearing against any accused/petitioner. It has been further argued that the same medical officer of Badarwas Hospital who recorded MLC of the injured Badal Singh on 18.6. 2017 has given written opinion in reply to the querry letter of the relating SHO dated 3.9.2017 that according to X-ray report of Badal Singh, no bony injury was found, hence all the injuries of Badal Singh were simple in nature. Placing reliance on the case of Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016) 4 CriCC 535 , it has been contended that as no bony (grievous) injury caused by any sharp cutting object was found on the body of Badal Singh, the trial Court erred in framing charge under section 308 or 308/149 of the IPC as there was no sufficient evidence available in the charge-sheet to show the existence of essential ingredients of section 308 of the IPC. Hence, it is prayed that framed charge under section 308 or 308/150 against each petitioner be set-aside and quashed and criminal revision be allowed. 4. Learned public prosecutor has supported the impugned order passed by learned trial Court and submits that prima facie according to MLC report, incised wounds on occipital region of skull and on left cheek of injured Badal were found and these incised injuries were caused by sharp object and some other injuries are also mentioned in MLC recorded by Doctor R.L. Pippal on 18.6. 2017 and though the MLC is not legible but it was also mentioned in MLC that injured Badal Singh was unconscious at that time and was under danger to his life and it is further argued that for framing charge punishable under sections 307 or 308, it is not necessary that actually any grievous injury sufficient to cause death of the injured, in ordinary course of nature, should have been inflicted and for offence punishable under sections 307 or 308 of the IPC only the intention of the relating accused or accused persons is material. 5. True copy of the charge sheet with its total enclosures have been filed before this Court by the petitioners. It is clear that according to X-ray reported dated 18.6. 2017 of District hospital, Shivpuri, no bony injury was found in radiological examination of skull and lumbar region of injured Badal Singh and in reply to above mentioned querry letter dated 3.9. 2017 of SHO, Police Station Badarwas, Block Medical Officder has given written answer that X-ray report of Badal Singh is not indicating any bony injury, hence, his injuries were not fatal and all injuries were simple in nature. It appears that the relating MLC recorded on 18.6. 2017 is not happily worded, but in MLC it is clearly mentioned by the relating doctor that at that time Badal Singh was unconscious and he was in danger of life. 6. It is well settled that at the stage of the framing of charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of sections 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of sections 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao (2012 AIR SCW 5139), the apex Court considered the scope of sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. 7. It appears that in the case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no any injury caused by sharp edged weapon was found on any vital part of the body of the injured persons, whereas in case at hand according to MLC report incised wound of size 5x 1x ½ Cms was found by relating doctor on occipital region of skull of Badal Singh and incised wound of size 3x1x ½ Cms caused by sharp object was also found on left cheek of injured Badal Singh and some other injuries were also found on the body of Badal Singh at 10:30 am on 18.6. 2017. It could not be argued that skull is not a vital organ of human body. Two incised wounds by sharp cutting object were found on the body of injured Badal Singh. Hence, in view of these facts of the case, the case relied on by learned counsel is easily distinguishable from the case in hand. 8. It has been clearly observed by the apex Court in the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and ors. Hence, in view of these facts of the case, the case relied on by learned counsel is easily distinguishable from the case in hand. 8. It has been clearly observed by the apex Court in the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and ors. [ (1983) 2 SCC 28 ] and State of M.P. v. Kedar Yadav [2011 (1) SCC (Cri) 1008 that the----section 307 makes a distinction between the act of accused and its result, if any and the Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section, hence an accused charged under section 307 of the IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of simple hurt. The offence of section 307 is relating to attempt of murder and the offence punishable under section 308 of the IPC is relating to attempt to commit culpable homicide. It is clear that for both of these offences intention or knowledge of the relating accused is most important. In the light of total material available in the chargesheet filed against the present petitioners/accused persons and in the light of above mentioned citations, it is clear that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in framing charge for the offence punishable under sections 308 or 308/150 against each petitioner/accused. 9. It appears that there was prima facie material in the charge sheet against each petitioner/accused and the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in framing of above mentioned charge for the offence punishable under sections 308 or 308/149 against each petitioner. The revision appears to be devoid of substance and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed.