Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 181 (MP)

Baga @ Bhagirath v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2024-02-16

PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA

body2024
ORDER : Heard. This criminal revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner/accused being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 22-9-2023 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar in S.T. No. 150/2023 whereby, learned trial Court has framed charges under section 294, 302, 323 (6 counts) and 506 Part-II of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 11-6-2023 at around 8:00 PM, when the complainant Rahul Naik was walking and reached in front of the house of Mukesh, he saw that a quarrel had taken place between the petitioner Baga Bhagirath and Mukesh. When the complainant tried to intervene, then the petitioner abused him in filthy language. The complainant objected the same on which the petitioner assaulted him by kicks and fists. Uncle of complainant/ injured Kishan came to rescue the complainant, then the petitioner assaulted Kishan on his abdomen by kicks and fists. Wife of complainant Mamta Bai, sister-in-law (bhabhi) Urmila and Mayabai and Aunt Jhatibai also came there to exhort the petitioner, then he also abused them verbally and physically assaulted them. The petitioner gave life threat to the complainant party. The injured persons were taken to government hospital Kasrawad. The matter was reported on the same day by the complainant. The injured Kishan received grievous injury on his abdomen. Therefore, he was referred to Khargone. He was treated from 13-6-2023 – 15-6-2023 at Sundar Hospital, Khargone, thereafter he was admitted in Parul Sevashram Hospital, Vadodara, Gujarat. During treatment, on 25-6-2023, Kishan succumbed to his injuries. 3. After hearing both the parties on 22-9-2023, learned trial Court had framed charges against the petitioner as mentioned above. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order by which learned trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is bad in law and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. Learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the facts in the present case. It is further submitted that if the allegation of prosecution case is accepted, then too no offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that initially the FIR was lodged under section 294, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that if the allegation of prosecution case is accepted, then too no offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that initially the FIR was lodged under section 294, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The deceased had died after around 14 days of the incident. As per post-mortem report, prima facie, the cause of death was not the injury inflicted by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner had no intention to kill the deceased. He did not use any weapon in the incident. Therefore, act of the petitioner comes only under section 323 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order in respect of framing of charge under section 302 is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions and supported the impugned order and has submitted that as per opinion given by the concerned doctor, injury received by the deceased was grievous in nature and also was dangerous to life. It is also submitted that after the incident, the deceased was continuously under treatment. As per post-mortem report, there was partial petrifaction and decomposition in kidney, bladder and intestine wall. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased sustained grievous injury on his vital body organs. Cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to chronic septic with shock. Therefore, it is submitted that learned trial Court has rightly framed charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631 has reiterated as under :— “21. This Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4 , considered the scope of enquiry a judge is required to make while considering the question of framing of charges. This Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4 , considered the scope of enquiry a judge is required to make while considering the question of framing of charges. After an exhaustive survey of the case law on the point, this Court, in paragraph 10 of the judgment, laid down the following principles:- “(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code 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. (2) 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. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however 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 within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece 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, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” 8. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 in paragraphs 25 and 27 has held as under :— “25. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 in paragraphs 25 and 27 has held as under :— “25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court 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 or offences. For this limited purpose, the Court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. 27. In view of the settled legal position, noted above, we are convinced that the trial Court was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that a case for framing charge against the appellant had been made out. Similarly, the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under section 401 of the Code being limited, the High Court was justified in dismissing the revision petition, preferred by the appellant.” 9. From the foregoing analysis, it appears that there are sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence available on record against the petitioner which constitutes an offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, prima-facie to frame charge against him. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly framed charge against the petitioner. Learned trial Court has not committed any error, legal or factual in passing the impugned order and framing of the charge. 10. Resultantly, this Court does not find any merit in this revision. Therefore, impugned order is hereby affirmed and revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.