Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1285 (ALL)

Munnanul Haq v. State of U. P.

2020-11-04

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by Munnanul Haq, Asif, Arif and Ataur Rahman, with a prayer for quashing of impugned order dated 10.12.2013, passed in Sessions Trial No. 251 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 194 of 2012, under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 324/34, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kanth, District Moradabad. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that vide impugned order, learned trial Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Moradabad, in Sessions trial No. 251 of 2013, has framed charge for offences punishable under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 324/34, 504, 506 IPC, with a direction for trial of applicants for above charge. Whereas, no grievous hurt, likely to cause death, or of nature to cause death in all probability was there. Rather, injuries were held to be of simple in X-ray examination and supplementary report of medical examination of Javed Khan. Whereas, no supplementary report with regard to Sahamat is there. Medical Officer opined that the injuries could be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. But injuries were held to be of simple in nature. Hence, no offence, punishable under Section 308 IPC was made out. Even then, charge for the same was got framed. Whereas, this Court in a precedent, reported at 1980 A.L.J. 816, Bechan vs State of U.P., 1991 A.L.J. 568 and in an Application under Section 482 No. 28115 of 2010, decided on 10.11.2010, has held that injuries, if not of fatal in nature, will not amount for offence punishable under Section 308 IPC. Hence, impugned order of learned trial Court is under abuse of process of law. Hence, this application with above prayer. 3. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed, with this contention that it was a cross case, wherein, FIR was instantly got lodged as case crime number 194 of 2012, under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 324/34, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kanth, District Moradabad, on 10.7.2012, at 9.:40 A.M. The cross version by Mohd. 3. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed, with this contention that it was a cross case, wherein, FIR was instantly got lodged as case crime number 194 of 2012, under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 324/34, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kanth, District Moradabad, on 10.7.2012, at 9.:40 A.M. The cross version by Mohd. Arif was also got registered for offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, on the same date of 10.7.2012 at 10:15 A.M. The injured Javed Khan and Sahamat were instantly taken for medical treatment by police personnel and they were instantly taken medically examined, wherein, Javed Khan was having injury:- (1) Incised wound of 5.0cm X 1.0cm, deep bone over skull, anteriorly, 7.5cm above medial end of left eyebrow. At the time of examination patient was unconscious with blood pressure of 110/60 mmHg, pulse rate 90 bpm. (2) Tenderness was present over left side of chest wall, though no mark of injury was there. (3) Tenderness was also present over left side of abdomen and in lumbar region. Injury No. (1) is caused by some sharp edged object and injury Nos. (2) and (3) by hard and blunt object. All injuries are fresh in duration and kept under observation. Patient was refereed to District Hospital for admission & X-ray [CT skull and chest & USG Abdomen]. Sahamat was also medically examined and he was having injuries:- (1) Incised wound of 5.5cm X 1.0cm above deep over right side of skull, laterally 9.0cm above roof of left pinna. Patient was conscious. (2) Traumatic swelling of size 3.5cm X 2.5cm over left wrist dorsally. (3) An abrasion of size 1.0cm X 1.0cm over left palm. Injury No. 1 is caused by sharp edged object and injury Nos. 2 and 3 were caused by hard and blunt object. All injuries were fresh in duration. Injury No. 3 is simple in nature and injury Nos. 1 and 2 are kept under observation and advised for X-ray and CT scan and patient was referred for hospital for his admission and further management. Though supplementary report of Javeda Khan is with no abnormalcy, but patient was admitted for a long time for his treatment and seat and size of injury was over skull. Hence, offence punishable under Section 308 IPC was very well there. Accordingly, charge was framed. 4. Though supplementary report of Javeda Khan is with no abnormalcy, but patient was admitted for a long time for his treatment and seat and size of injury was over skull. Hence, offence punishable under Section 308 IPC was very well there. Accordingly, charge was framed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the both sides and gone through the material placed on record, it is apparent that on the same day of occurrence, FIR, by both sides, were got registered at police station Kanth, Moradabad. Injured of present case Javed Khan and Sahamat was taken to hospital, where, they were medico legally examined and were having injuries, written as above. They were referred for their specialized treatment. Seat and size of injuries were on skull of both injured and these injuries were of incised nature, caused by sharp edged weapon. Accusation was that assault was made by four accused persons, in furtherance of their joint mensrea, by lathi, danda and tabbal (a sharp edged weapon like spade). This assault was with regard to dispute of landed property in between. Meaning thereby, assault was made by hard and blunt object as well as by sharp edged object, over both of injured persons and they have sustained injuries of sharp edged weapon's incised wound over skull and Medical Officer, while preparing supplementary report of Javed Khan, has specifically mentioned that injury No. 1 could be fatal. Hence, at the stage of framing of charge, meticulous analysis of evidence, in accordance with hair splitting in nature, is not needed. Rather, at the time of framing of charge, the evidences brought by prosecution on record, is to be taken into consideration and Hon'ble Apex Court in Palwinder Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and others AIR 2009 SC 887 as well as in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors, AIR 2013 SC 52 , has propounded that jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charges can be framed also on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the Court at that point of time. Charges can be framed also on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the Court at that point of time. The facts of present case reveals that injuries of sharp edged weapon over skull of both of injured is there and seat and size of injuries was of this kind that at the time of medical examination Javed Khan was unconscious and his blood pressure was, as above. Medical Officer in his opinion was of the view that this injury could be fatal. Hence, at the time of framing of charge, above aspect is to be taken into consideration and on the basis of this, charges were framed, as above. 5. With regard to precedent, argued as above, it is apparent that in a criminal trial, each case remains with its own facts and the same is to be taken in view of fact of above particular case. Moreso, at the time of framing of charge, precedent or something decided by Apex Court or by this Court in final adjudication is not of material effect. Rather, ground for framing of charge is to be seen and it was very well there. Apex Court in Sayra Bano Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 Cri.L.J. 1457 SC, has propounded that criminal cases are decided on facts and evidences led in that particular case, not on the basis of precedent, having other facts and circumstances. Hence, on the basis of those facts and circumstances, the impugned framing of charge was in accordance with evidence on record till that point of time. 6. Moreso, this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not expected to make comment upon factual aspects because the same remains within the domain of trial, as has been propounded by Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767 : 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474 , Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781 , as well as in Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 . Accordingly, this application merits its dismissal. 7. Hence, dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.