Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 325 & 326 – Criminal P.C. 1973 – Ss. 227 & 228 – Framing of Charges – Medical Report – Injuries grievous in nature – not committed any error in framing the charges – at the stage of framing charges, an elaborate inquiry into truthfulness of the fact cannot be done.
Framing of Charges
SINGLE BENCH BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No.672/2013
Raja @ Rajkumar & Others Versus State of M.P. & Another
Shri Sarvesh Sharma, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K. Awasthi, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State.
O R D E R
The applicants have challenged the order dated 25.07.2013 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 94/2013 whereby the charges under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294, 323 in alternate 326 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC have been framed against the applicants No. 1 & 4 to 9 and charges under Sections 147, 148, 326, 341, 294 in alternate 149 of IPC have been framed against the applicant No.2 and charges under Section 147, 148, 325, 341, 294 in alternate Section 326 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC have been framed against the applicant No.3.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.11.2012 at about 9:30 am, complainant Ved Prakash Sharma along with his friend Manish Sharma was going to Ishagarh from village Kadwaya. When they reached near village Dhanwara, the applicants armed with luhangi, lathi & farsa stopped the complainant and abused him.
Thereafter, they assaulted him by aforesaid arms due to which he sustained injuries on his eyes, nose and other parts of the body. The matter was reported to the Police Station Ishagarh, where the case was registered at Crime No. 334/2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 294 of IPC. The injured Ved Prakash was sent for medical examination. In the medical examination, ten injuries were found on different parts of the body of complainant like left ankle joint, nose, left forearm and left hip joint, and x-ray examination was advised. The xray report of the complainant indicates that the complainant Ved Prakash Sharma received fracture on his mid shaft of left tibia bone and fracture of shaft of left fibula bone.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ashok Nagar who committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offences involved in the matter are triable by the Court of Sessions.
4. The trial Court pronounced the order and framed the charges against the applicants for commission of aforesaid offences. The charges framed under Sections 325 & 326 of IPC are the subject matter of challenge in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the complete prosecution story contains omnibus allegations. Basic ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Sections 325 & 326 of IPC are absent in the present case. Eye witness Manish Sharma has not supported the version of the complainant with regard to the role played by Satish Chandra and Kailash in the incident. As per the medical report, the injuries found on the body of complainant are simple in nature. Under these circumstances, the charges framed against the applicants under Section 325 & 326 of IPC are totally baseless. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State supported the impugned order and submitted that prima facie sufficient grounds are available to frame the charges against the applicants for the commission of offence under Sections 325 & 326 of IPC. The trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the applicants. Hence, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the copy of charge-sheet.
8. The respondent No.2 Ved Prakash Sharma was examined by the Doctor and as per the MLC report, following injuries were found:-
(i) Incised Puncture wound (stab wound) on left mid part anteriorly to leg fresh prefused bleeding on wound, size 4x3x deep to muscle
(ii) Contusion below left eye size 3 x 2 cm.
(iii) Contusion below right eye size 2×2 cm.
(iv) Painful swelling on left ankle joint.
(v) Abrasion on right side forehead size 2×2 cm.
(vi) Painful swelling on nose and blood coming out both nostril.
(vii) Redness and contusion on multiple postery chest wall 2×2 cm, 3×4 cm.
(viii) Dental injury in mouth.
(ix) Painful swelling on left mid forearm.
(x) Painful swelling on right posto WP (waist).
9. As per MLC report, the injuries on left ankle joint, left forearm and right hip joint were referred for x-ray and as per x-ray report, the injury of left leg, left ankle joint and nose are said to be grievous in nature. The injury caused on left leg is caused by sharp cutting object and injury on left ankle and nosal bone are caused by hard and blunt object.
10. As per medical report, the said injuries have been opined by the Doctor to be grievous in nature, therefore, in my opinion, framing of charge under sections 325 & 326 of IPC is proper and trial Court has not committed any error in framing the aforesaid charges against the applicants.
11. At this stage, It is appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Bihar v. Ramesh, AIR 1977 SC 18
in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the scope of interference at the stage of framing of charge which is as under :-
“Reading Ss. 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under S. 227 or S.228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction.
Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.”
12. The aforesaid issues came up for consideration before the Lordship of the Apex Court in the case of