Judgment:
ORDER
S.K. Dubey, J.
1. By this petition under S. 397 read with S. 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charges under Ss. 302/34 and 307/34, IPC, framed on 18-5-1990 in Sessions Trial No. 15/1990, by First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha.
2. The two petitioners with two other co-accused, Rajesh, the son of petitioner No. 1, and Dewansingh, the husband or petitioner No. 2, have been booked for offences under Sections 323, 324, 325, 307 and 302/34, IPC, registered as Crime No. 121/1989, by Police Station Gulabganj, District Vidisha, on a report lodged by one Bhuribai.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is thus: On 29-11-1989 at about 11 a.m. in village Khejra, when Randhirsingh, Bhuribai's son, was stacking grass in the Kheda, co-accused Dewansingh, armed with a Farsa, and Rajesh, armed with an axe, came and objected to the stacking of the grass in the Kheda, as the Kheda belonged to them the accused also started abusing. On it Randhirsingh asked them not to abuse at that time Jaswant, another son of Bhuribai, came there, who also objected to the abuse, on it Dewansingh dealt a Farsa blow on Jaswant, when Randhirsingh tried to save Jaswant, Rajesh dealt an axe blow on Randhirsingh, when Laxman, another son of Bhuribai, came to save the two, Rajesh gave an axe blow on his head. Seeing that all the 3 sons have been caused injuries with Farsa and axe, the mother Bhuribai and her daughter-in-law Amarbai came to their rescue. On it, the two petitioners, who were armed with sticks, gave stick blows to Amarbai and Bhuribai and also on the 3 injured persons. In the occurrence Randhirsingh died. On autopsy the following injuries were found on his person :-
Ante-mortem injuries.
1) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm., obliquely situated on left side of chest in 7th intercostal space in anterior axillary line, in the line of rib, fresh red.
2) Surgically stitched wound 12 cm. long with 11 stitches, situated on left parietal and temporal region, starting from 3 cm. above the upper part of pinna going upwards and posteriorly up to parietal eminence, underneath swelling present, margins sharply cut and not united. Temporal muscle found stitched and ecchymosed; underneath the temporal (It.) muscle bone was missing in an area of 9 x 5 cm, involving (It.) parietal and temporal bone, upper half of the bony hold showed nibbled out margin and lower half well defined but irregular margins, nearly rectangular in shape, directed downwards and anteriorly. From the lower margin of bony hold linear fracture lines of 4 cm, 3 cm and 6 cm, extending transversely to anterior, obliquely downwards and vertically from above downwards and posteriorly, respectively. Underneath the bone thick (5 mm.) extradural haemorrhage (clotted) present on parietal and temporal lobes in an area of 10 x 8 cm and subdural haemorrhage on temporal-parietal lobes and middle cranial fossa 3-5 mm. thick, cupping effect present, temporoparietal lobes patchy subarachnoid haemorrhage present all over on left parietal lobe and intracerebral haemorrhage (3x2 cm) in temporal lobe. Pachy subarachnoid haemorrhage also present on right temporal lobe. C.S.F. haemorrhagic, brain markedly oedematous and congested. A rubber drain (corrugated) is also present on (It.) parietal eminence, 1 cm below the stitched wound, through a 5 cm cut in the scalp connecting the extradural space. Injuries were antemortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Opinion. Death was due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of head injuries and its complications.
On medical examination of injured Jaswant Singh, Laxman Singh, Bhuribai, Amarbai and Premsingh, the following injuries were found:
(1) Jaswantsingh.
1) Incised wound over right lateral head 10 cm above right ear, size 8x1x1 cm. Advised X-ray right lateral skull. Simple injury caused by sharp object On X-ray fracture of skull bone on posterior part was found.
(2) Laxmansingh.
1) Incised wound over right fore-head, size 5 x 1 x 1 cm. Advised X-ray. Caused by sharp object.
2) Complaint of pain over back.
On X-ray of skull - AP & Lateral view, no bony fracture was seen.
(3) Bhuribai.
Abrasion mark over left and back, caused by rubbing on rough surface. Simple in nature.
(4) Amarbai.
1) Incised wound over left inter space index and middle finger, size 2 x 1 x 1 cm
2) Abrasion mark over left leg.
Caused by sharp object, simple in nature.
(5) Premsingh. Bruises on it. & It. shoulders. Simple.
4. After committal, on a consideration of the documents and material on record, and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, the trial Judge having found a prima facie case framed the charges. The petitioners were charged under S. 302/34, IPC, for committing the murder of Randhirsingh, and under S. 307/34 for attempting to commit the murder by inflicting injuries on Laxmansingh, Jaswantsingh, Premsingh, Bhuribai and Amarbai. Aggrieved of the charges so framed, the petitioners have approached this Court for exercising the revisional and/or The inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the charges.
5. Shri B.L. Bhargava, counsel for petitioner; Shri R.A. Roman Government Advocate for State, and Shri Rakesh Saxena, counsel for the complainant, were heard. Record perused.
6. It was contended by counsel for petitioners that the petitioners cannot be said to have shared a common intention with other co-accused persons for committing the murder of the deceased, and for attempting to commit the murder of the injured persons, as from the documents on record and the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C., the petitioners are said to have been armed with sticks, who according to the complainant, caused simple injuries to the deceased and the injured persons. In such circumstances, the common intention has to be gathered from their overt acts and not from what the other accused did, the petitioners, as the prosecution case stands, cannot be convicted either under Section 302/34 or Section 307/34, IPC, and can at the most be convicted under Section 323/34, IPC. Counsel pressed into service a decision of the apex Court in case of A. Mohanam v. State of Kerala, 1990 SCC (Cri) 620. Placing reliance on a short-noted decision of this Court in Santoshkumar v. State of M.P., 1990 (II) MPWN 213, it was contended that as no prima facie case under Section 302/34 and/or Section 307/34, IPC, is established, the trial court erred in not discharging the accused/petitioners of the said offences.
7. After hearing counsel, I am of opinion that this Court need not delve deep into various aspects of the case in sifting and weighing the material at this stage. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime, as at the stage of framing of charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of charge under S. 227 or S. 228, Cr.P.C. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Court, which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence, as said by the apex Court, time and again. If any authority is needed, see Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs. West Bengal v. Anil Kumar, AIR 1980 SC 52 : 1979 Cri LJ 1390 and State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 : 1977 Cri LJ 1606.
8. Though guidelines as to the scope of inquiry for the purpose of discharging of an accused are contained in Section 227, Cr. P.C. itself. It provides that 'the Judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.' The ground in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a, ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial that the guilt or innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. Therefore, the Court need not undertake an elaborate inquiry. The power conferred by S. 227 to discharge an accused is designed to prevent harassment to an innocent person by the arduous trial or the ordeal of prosecution. The power has been entrusted to the Sessions Judge to bring to bear his knowledge and experience in criminal trials. If the Sessions Judge after hearing the parties frames a charge and also makes an order in support thereof, the law must be allowed to take its own course. Self-restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice staring the Court in the face. See Stree Atyachar Virodhi Pari. v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715 : (1990 Cri LJ 889) and Ramesh Singh's case (supra), and also a recent decision of this Court in case of Amarsingh v. State of M.P., Criminal Revision No. 1/1992, decided on 27-3-1992. It is not the law that if there is inadequacy of evidence for framing of charge against the accused, the High Court should interfere and quash the charge; that would be a premature assessment of evidence and would amount to interference on the wrong premises. See Mohd. Akbar Dar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1981 SC 1548 : (1981 Cri LJ 1135) and Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari, AIR 1990 SC 121 : 1990 Cri LJ 668.
9. In the present case, the trial Court while framing the two charges, as aforesaid, against the accused/petitioners, has considered every material on record and heard the prosecution and the accused. Though the order does not give reasons in details, that would hardly be a ground for interference. I myself have looked into the scenerio of the occurrence, the injuries received, the postmortem report, the medical reports and the statements recorded during the investigation so as to justify the framing of the charges. I am of opinion that the order of framing of charges does not require deep delve into the enquiry on the contentions raised by petitioners' counsel. Suffice it to say, reliance on Mohanam's case (supra) at this stage is inappropriate, as in that case, the apex Court on apprisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial, observed that the common intention has to be gathered from one's own overt acts and not from what others did subsequently.
10. In the result, the revision petition fails and dismissed. The stay order passed by this Court on 24-5-1990 is vacated.
11. Let the record of the trial Court be sent back immediately so as to reach the said Court on or before 20-4-1992 on which date the accused persons shall appear before the trial Court, or on the date already fixed by the trial Court whichever is earlier. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously and shall dispose of the case within four months from the date of appearance of the parties.