Full Judgment
Criminal Revision No.1029/2013 18.02.2014 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard on the question of admission.
By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicants have challenged the order dated 16.5.2013 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur in ST No.88/2013 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 307 or 307/149 of IPC were framed against the applicants along with other charges.
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.1.2013 the applicants assaulted the various victims at Village Purgawan Tahsil Gadarwara District Narsinghpur.
As per the allegations, they assaulted the victims Anil Sharma, Mukesh, Shashikan, Laxman, Satyanarayan and Diwan.
On 18.2.2013 the doctor of Anant Institute of Medical Sciences gave a report that injury of the victim Anil Sharma was grave, and therefore charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 307 or 307/149 of IPC and the case was committed.
The learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence collected by the prosecution framed the charges for the offences 148, 448, 307 or 307/149, 325 or 325/149 (2 counts).323 or 323/149 (3 counts).294, 506-B of IPC.
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 as many as six accused persons are implicated in the matter and at least six persons sustained injuries in the quarrel.
However, it is strange that the victim Anil Sharma sustained one injury on his head.
It was alleged that the injury was caused by a rad.
Since the applicants did not assault any more to the victim Anil Sharma, therefore their intention is visible that they did not intent to kill the victim Anil Sharma.
Therefore, by reason of intention charge under Section 307 of IPC cannot constitute.
So far as nature of injuries is concerned, initially the doctor who examined the victim Anil Sharma in the Government Hospital found a lacerated wound on his left parietal region.
No other injury was found to the victim.
However, vide report dated 18.2.2013 of the Anant Institute of Medical Sciences, it appears that a fracture of clavicle bone was found to the victim.
However, that bone does not cover the vital part of the body, and therefore by that fracture only offence under Section 325 of IPC may constitute.
It was mentioned in the history of report that the patient was conscious and all the four limbs were working.
It was not mentioned in the report that any bleeding was found from the ears and Nos.to that there was any brain hemorrhage.
Ultimately no fracture was found in the head, and therefore it would be apparent that there was no forceful assault caused on the head of the victim Anil Sharma.
Dr.
Sushila Bagri has mentioned in her report that the injury was grave in nature, however it is nowhere mentioned that the said injury was fatal.
If it is to be mentioned that the injury is grievous, then it should be in terms of Section 320 of IPC.
If the injury caused to the victim Anil Sharma is considered, then it does not fall in any ingredients of Section 320 of IPC.
It is nowhere mentioned by Dr.
Sushila Bagri that the injury was fatal in nature.
Under such circumstances, due to assault on the head of the victim Anil Sharma, neither the injury was found fatal nor grave.
The opinion given by Dr.
Bagri had no basis.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that neither any applicant intended to kill the victim Anil Sharma nor his injury was found to be fatal in nature.
Therefore the matter of the victim Anil Sharma does not fall within the purview of Section 300 of IPC and no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 149 of IPC.
Similarly, no offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out against the applicants, because no grave injury was found on the head of the victim Anil Sharma.
Under such circumstances, the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in framing the charge of Section 307 or 307/149 of IPC.
Therefore, the present revision filed by the applicants can be accepted.
Hence it is hereby accepted.
The impugned order dated 16.5.2013 is hereby set aside.
The applicants are discharged from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 307 or 307/149, 326 or 326/149 of IPC relating to the victim Anil Sharma.
The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to hear the learned counsel for the parties for framing of charges and to frame the charges a fresh.
If requires, the trial Court may proceed under Section 228 of Cr.P.C.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari