Nanhu @ Nannelal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1041807
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-13-2013
AppellantNanhu @ Nannelal
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
criminal revision no.425/2013 13.03.2013 shri b.j.chourasiya, counsel for the applicants. shri ajay tamrakar, panel lawyer for the respondent/state. as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. the applicants have challenged the order dated 13.2.2013 passed by the learned 3rd additional sessions judge damoh in s.t.no.45/13, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under sections 307 or 307/149 of ipc were framed against the applicants alongwith other charges. the facts relating to the present revision, in short are that, on 30.10.2012 at about 1:30 a.m.in the morning, the applicants had constituted unlawful assembly and they assaulted the victim ashokrani, thereafter, when panna lal came to save the victim ashokrani, the applicants also assaulted him. it was alleged against the applicant nannhu that he assaulted the victim panna lal by an axe. also, other accused persons assaulted him causing a fracture in his hand. 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 injuries caused to the victim pannal lal in his hand was not on a vital part of the body and for that injury, the offence punishable under section 325 of ipc may constitute. only one fracture was found on the head of the victim panna lal. nobody has given any second stroke on his head and therefore, it is apparent that the applicants were not intended to kill the victim panna lal. in c.t.scan report, no fracture was found to the victim on his head. the doctor, who did the mlc of the victim pannal lal found him conscious and there was no symptom of brain haemorrhage. in c.t.scan report, there was no definite opinion of brain haemorrhage caused to the victim pannal lal. under such circumstances, neither any fatal injury was caused to the victim not the applicants were intended to kill the victim. no ingredient of section 300 of ipc is visible in the case. the charges of the offences punishable under sections 325 and 324 of ipc could be framed for the injuries caused to the victim panna lal, whereas the trial court has framed the charges of the offences punishable under sections 307 or 307/149 of ipc. hence, the learned 3rd additional sessions judge, damoh has committed an error of law. under such circumstances, it is a fit case in which an interference is required from the side of this court by way of the present revision. consequently, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby allowed. the order dated 13.2.2013 passed by the learned 3rd additional sessions judge, damoh is hereby set aside. the applicants are discharged from the charges of the offences punishable under sections 307 or 307/149 of ipc. the trial court is directed to proceed under section 228 of cr.p.c.for trial of the remaining charges. a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance. c.c.as per rules. (n.k.gupta) judge pnkj
Judgment:

Criminal Revision No.425/2013 13.03.2013 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, counsel for the applicants.

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

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

The applicants have challenged the order dated 13.2.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Damoh in S.T.No.45/13, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/149 of IPC were framed against the applicants alongwith other charges.

The facts relating to the present revision, in short are that, on 30.10.2012 at about 1:30 a.m.in the morning, the applicants had constituted unlawful assembly and they assaulted the victim Ashokrani, thereafter, when Panna Lal came to save the victim Ashokrani, the applicants also assaulted him.

It was alleged against the applicant Nannhu that he assaulted the victim Panna Lal by an axe.

Also, other accused persons assaulted him causing a fracture in his hand.

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 injuries caused to the victim Pannal Lal in his hand was not on a vital part of the body and for that injury, the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC may constitute.

Only one fracture was found on the head of the victim Panna Lal.

Nobody has given any second stroke on his head and therefore, it is apparent that the applicants were not intended to kill the victim Panna Lal.

In C.T.Scan report, no fracture was found to the victim on his head.

The doctor, who did the MLC of the victim Pannal Lal found him conscious and there was no symptom of brain haemorrhage.

In C.T.Scan report, there was no definite opinion of brain haemorrhage caused to the victim Pannal Lal.

Under such circumstances, neither any fatal injury was caused to the victim not the applicants were intended to kill the victim.

No ingredient of Section 300 of IPC is visible in the case.

The charges of the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 324 of IPC could be framed for the injuries caused to the victim Panna Lal, whereas the trial Court has framed the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/149 of IPC.

Hence, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh has committed an error of law.

Under such circumstances, it is a fit case in which an interference is required from the side of this Court by way of the present revision.

Consequently, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby allowed.

The order dated 13.2.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh is hereby set aside.

The applicants are discharged from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/149 of IPC.

The trial Court is directed to proceed under Section 228 of Cr.P.C.for trial of the remaining charges.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.

C.C.as per rules.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj