Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 45 (MP)

Chunni Lal v. State of M. P.

2018-01-11

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2018
ORDER 1. The applicants have filed this revision challenging the order dated 7.3.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Umariya in Sessions Trial No. 08/2017, by which charges under section 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed against the applicants. 2. As per prosecution story on 25.10.2016, at about 10.00 am when the applicants went to shop of the complainant and taken Bidi at that time grand son of the complainant demanded money then the applicants abused him and assaulted the complainant with axes and lathi. The complainant therefore lodged FIR against the applicants under section 307/34 of the IPC. After investigation challan has been filed before the competent Court. During trial, the trial Court has framed charges against the applicants under section 307/34 of the IPC on 7.3.2017. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicants have filed the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial Court has committed an error in framing a charge under section 307 of the IPC against the applicants. It is further submitted that no grievous injuries have been sustained by the complainant. The complainant has sustained simple injury and was admitted in hospital from 25.10.2016 to 28.10.2016 and thus, no case under section 307 of the IPC is made out against the applicants. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the decisions passed by this Court in the case of Nawab Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [ 2015(I) MPWN 115 =2015(2) MPHT 159], and Brahmanand @ Brahmajeet Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 2013(III) MPWN 76 ]. 4. Learned Government Advocate for the State supports the order passed by the trial Court. It is submitted that from perusal of FIR, it is clear that the applicant No.1 has caused injury on the head of the complainant by axe while the applicant No.2 has caused injury on the left shoulder of the complainant by lathi and as per medical report, the injuries which are caused by axe is dangerous to life of the complainant and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly framed charges against the applicants. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the trial Court has framed charges against the applicants under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the trial Court has framed charges against the applicants under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC. That while framing the charge, it is for the trial Court to consider the material available on record whether the accused can be convicted for particular offence or not. In the present case, from the allegations made in FIR, the applicant No.1 has caused an injury by axe on the head of the complainant and as per the opinion of the doctor, the said injury is grievous in nature and dangerous to life. So far as the injuries caused by applicant No. 2 is contusion and it is on the left shoulder of the complainant caused by lathi. 6. Thus, on the basis of the allegations made in FIR as well as supported by medical evidence, I do not find any reason to interfere in the charges framed against the applicant No. 1 under section 307 of the IPC. However, so far as charge against applicant No. 2 is concerned, the injury, which is caused by him on the left shoulder of the complainant is simple injury i.e. contusion, therefore, the trial Court is directed to frame appropriate charge against the applicant No.2. So far as the decisions relied on by learned counsel for the applicants in the case of Nawab Khan (supra), is concerned, there is no external or internal injuries were found by the doctor and similarly, in the case of Brahmanand (supra), the injuries were not dangerous to life and were simple in nature and, therefore, both the above decisions are not applicable in the present case as the doctor has opined that the injury which is caused by the applicant No. 1 is grievous in nature and is dangerous to life. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Shuil Kumar Tiwari for applicants; Rohit Sohgaura for respondent/State.