Judgment:
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON.
SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1660/2009 Gajraj Singh & otheRs.versus State of Madhya Pradesh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER
(Passed on the 14th day of March, 2013) The applicants have filed this revision against the order dated 8.9.2009 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Astha District Sehore in ST No.176/2009 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 307 or 307/149 of IPC were framed against the applicants.”
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 6.12.2008 at about 11:00 AM in the morning the applicants assaulted the victims Surendra and Narendra in the house of Surendra situated at Village Tigariya.
It is alleged that Narendra sustained fatal injuries.
Under such circumstances, the trial Court has framed the charges of offence punishable under Section 307 or 307/149 of IPC for the victim Narendra. 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 the victim Narendra sustained a single injury, that was a lacerated wound on his parietal region of the head, but no bony injury was found. As many as six persons were implicated in the crime and it is apparent that only one assault was caused to the victim Narendra, and therefore looking to the overt-acts of the applicants, it is apparent that they were not intended to kill the victim Narendra. Similarly, there was no symptom of brain hemorrhage was found to the victim Narendra. No fracture was caused on his head, which indicates that no much force was used in causing the injury to the victim Narendra. The injury was simple in nature. It was neither grievous not fatal. Under such circumstances, the ingredients of Section 300 of IPC are not visible in the present case, and therefore no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against any of the applicants. At the most offence under Section 323 or 323/149 of IPC may be constituted against the applicants.” 4. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that a legal mistake has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in framing the charges of offence punishable under Section 307 or 307/149 of 3 IPC. Hence it is a fit case in which an interference is required from the side of this Court in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 8.9.2009 passed by the Court below is hereby set aside. The applicants are discharged from the offence punishable under Section 307 or 307/149 of IPC. It appears that the case remains not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, and therefore the trial Court is directed to proceed under Section 228 of Cr.P.C.for further trial of the case.” 5. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. (N.K.Gupta) Judge 14.03.2013 Ansari.