Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 69 (MP)

SIDDIQI s/o CHOTTE KHAN v. STATE OF M. P.

2018-01-16

S.K.AWASTHI

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This revision application takes exception to the order dated 4-1-2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora), in Sessions Trial No. 460/2017, whereby the charges under section 148, 294, 307/149, 506-II of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) have been framed against the applicants. 2. The facts given rise to the present revision are that the applicants were alleged to have inflicted injuries to Ramchandra, Geetabai, Jatan Bai and Kaushalya Bai. It is further alleged that applicant No. 2-Sajjid and applicant No. 6-Salam gave a latti blow on the skull of Ramchandra due to which he sustained fatal injuries. This incident was reported to Police-Station Jirapur and F.I.R bearing Crime No. 356/2017 was registered for commission of offences under sections 147/148, 294, 506-II, 307 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Charge-sheet was filed and the trail Court, while passing the impugned order, framed charges for offences punishable under section 307 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants. This order is under challenge in the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has invited the attention of this Court to the C.T. Scan report of Ramchandra, in which, a categorical observation has been made that “No significant intra cranial abnormality is noted” meaning thereby that the applicants cannot be attributed with the intention to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder. Therefore, it is contended that the trial Court has erred in framing charge under section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code. Apart from this, prima-facie ingredients to frame charges against the applicants are also absent. 4. To the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor emphasis on the fact that the injuries are present on the head of Ramchandra, which is enough for attributing the intention to commit murder, on the part of the applicants, therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference. 5. 4. To the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor emphasis on the fact that the injuries are present on the head of Ramchandra, which is enough for attributing the intention to commit murder, on the part of the applicants, therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the documents placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has committed error in framing charge punishable under section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code 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 of injured Ramchandra were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death, however, with respect to other offences charged against the applicants, would suffice has to be observed. At the stage of framing of charges, an elaborate enquiry into truthfulness of the case cannot be done, although at the same time, the Court cannot be mere spectator or a mouth piece of the prosecution. In this regard, observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002(2) SCC 135 is relevant, which is being reproduced as under : “12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In this regard, observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002(2) SCC 135 is relevant, which is being 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 vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979 3 SCC 5)].” 6. Taking this view of the matter, the revision petition is partly allowed and the charge framed against the applicants under section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. As regards, the injuries caused to Ramchandra, the charges for offences punishable under section 323, 323/149 of Indian Penal Code is consequently made out in place of section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code. So far as other charges are concerned, I find that no interference is called for and the same are hereby maintained. 7. As regards, the injuries caused to Ramchandra, the charges for offences punishable under section 323, 323/149 of Indian Penal Code is consequently made out in place of section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code. So far as other charges are concerned, I find that no interference is called for and the same are hereby maintained. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the order impugned is modified to the extent that the offences, prima facie, made out against the applicants are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, therefore, the Sessions Court is directed to remand the case to concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class. 8. A copy of this order along with the record be sent to the Sessions Court for necessary information and compliance. Certified copy as per Rules.