Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 895 (MP)

Puralal v. State of M. P.

2022-07-05

SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH

body2022
ORDER 1. This criminal revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed against the order dated 7.12.2021 passed by the Court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Alot, District Ratlam in S.T.No.4/2020, whereby charges under section 147, 308 of IPC in alternate 308 read with section 149, 323 read with section 149, 447, 504 of IPC and also under section 3/181 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act were framed against the applicants. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that complainant Mohanlal's father Onkarlal and applicant Puralal are real brothers. During the lifetime of complainant's grand-father a partition took place between complainant's father Onkarlal and uncle Puralal, wherein they got 6-6 Bighas land in their share. Complainant's father mutated the aforesaid land, while uncle Puralal has sold his share. On 30.10.2009 at about 17.00 PM when complainant alongwith his mother Sahayatabai was present on his land his uncle Puralal alongwith other co-accused persons came there on two motorcycles and tractor. They started cultivating complainant's land and when complainant objected, they having common object to commit his murder assaulted him with wooden sticks (Lathi). Complainant stopped their blows on his right hand as well as left palm, otherwise the same will hit on his head and it would cause grievous injuries to him. Applicants and other co-accused persons abused filthy languages and threatened him also. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per prosecution case itself applicants and co-accused Radheshyam assaulted complainant with wooden sticks (Lathi) and the same were stopped by the complainant. Complainant's MLC report reveals that no external injury was found on his body during his medical examination, therefore, offence under section 308 of IPC cannot be said to be made out against the applicanty as in ingredients of the aforesaid section are not fulfilled. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submits that applicant alongwith other co-accused persons having common object to commit murder of the complainant reached the spot and gave wooden sticks (Lathi) blows on vital part head of the complainant, which he stopped, otherwise the same will hit on his head and would cause his death. Therefore, petition filed by the applicants deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record. 6. Therefore, petition filed by the applicants deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record. 6. This is settled law that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are, therefore, not affected by the bar of section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 , the Hon'ble apex Court has unequivocally acknowledged that the High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstances of individual cases. 7. This petition has been filed only against the charges frmaed under section 308 or in alternative section 308 read with section 149 of IPC, therefore, ingredients of the aforesaid offences are required to be seen, which are as follows:- “(a) Essential Ingredients.- An offence under this section has following essential ingredients : (i) That an act was committed by the accused; (ii) That the said act was done with the intention or knowledge that he shall be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; (iii) That culpable homicide does not amount to murder, (a) if the act is done with the intention or kowledge referred to in section 300 IPC, but under circumstances which would bring the case within one of exceptions mentioned in that section, or (b) if the act is done with the intention or knowledge referred to in section 299 but not falling under clauses (2), (3) and (4) of section 300 IPC.” 8. In the present case, complainant Mohanlal in his FIR as well as in his statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C.specifically stated that when applicant and other co-accused persons started cultivating his land and he objected, applicants Puralal and Radheshyam assaulted him with wooden sticks (Lathi), which he stopped and took the same on his right hand and left palm meaning thereby none of the blows hit any other part of the body of the complainant. During medical examination no external or internal injury was found on his body. 9. During medical examination no external or internal injury was found on his body. 9. There is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that applicants were having common object to commit murder of the complainant and in furtherance of their said common object applicants Puralal and Radheshyam assaulted him having intention or knowledge that if they by that act cause death of the complainant, they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 10. Hence, charges framed under Section 308 or in alternative section 308 read with section 149 of IPC vide impugned order are not according to the material produced on record. Learned trial Court has failed to consider and framing the charges against the applicants, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, this revision petition is allowed and the charges framed under Section 308 of IPC or in the alternative section 308 read with section 149 of IPC are hereby quashed. The rest of the charges will remain as it is. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.