Mahoom Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Mahoom Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 19, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1040378

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1040378
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Mar 19, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahoom Singh

Advocate Shri. Sankalp Kochar

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....it is also alleged against the applicants that they assaulted the victim by the base of a gun. after due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent court. after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that one of the accused had a gun but he did not fire from that gun. only one stroke was given on the head of the victim mahendra singh. no repeated strokes were given on the head or any vital party of his body. it is apparent that the applicants were not intended to kill the victim mahendra singh prima facie. the victim mahendra singh sustained a fracture on his ulna bone and other simple injuries. no injury to the victim was found to be fatal. under such circumstances, the ingredients of section 300 of ipc are not attracted in the present case and therefore, no charge of the offence punishable under section 307 could be framed against the applicants either directly or with the help of section 34 of ipc. the learned additional sessions judge has committed an error of law in framing of such charge. at the most, the charges of the offences punishable under sections 325 or 325/34 of ipc may be constituted against the applicants for the injuries caused to the victim mahendra singh. the offence punishable under section 325 of ipc is triable by the court of j.m.f.c.and therefore, it would be proper for the learned 1st additional sessions judge to proceed under section 228 of cr.p.c.on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicants is hereby allowed. the order dated 11.10.2011 is hereby set aside. the applicants are discharged from the charges of the offences punishable under sections 307 or 307/34 of ipc. the trial court is directed to proceed under section 228 of cr.p.c.copy of this order be sent to the appellate court as well as trial court for information and compliance. (n.k.gupta) judge pnkj

Full Judgment

Criminal Revision No.1904/2011 19.03.2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the applicants.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, counsel for the objector.

As prayed by counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

The applicants have challenged the order dated 11.10.2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T.No.302/2011, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC were framed against the applicants.

The prosecution's case, in short is that, on 2.7.2011 at about 10:00 a.m.the applicants gathered in front of the house of Ram Prakash Patel situated in village Para (Police Station Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur) and thereafter, they assaulted the victim Mahendra Singh by various weapons.

It is also alleged against the applicants that they assaulted the victim by the base of a gun.

After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent Court.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that one of the accused had a gun but he did not fire from that gun.

Only one stroke was given on the head of the victim Mahendra Singh.

No repeated strokes were given on the head or any vital party of his body.

It is apparent that the applicants were not intended to kill the victim Mahendra Singh prima facie.

The victim Mahendra Singh sustained a fracture on his ulna bone and other simple injuries.

No injury to the victim was found to be fatal.

Under such circumstances, the ingredients of Section 300 of IPC are not attracted in the present case and therefore, no charge of the offence punishable under Section 307 could be framed against the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in framing of such charge.

At the most, the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 325 or 325/34 of IPC may be constituted against the applicants for the injuries caused to the victim Mahendra Singh.

The offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC is triable by the Court of J.M.F.C.and therefore, it would be proper for the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge to proceed under Section 228 of Cr.P.C.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicants is hereby allowed.

The order dated 11.10.2011 is hereby set aside.

The applicants are discharged from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34 of IPC.

The trial Court is directed to proceed under Section 228 of Cr.P.C.Copy of this order be sent to the appellate Court as well as trial Court for information and compliance.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Mahoom Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education