HEMANT DHRITLAHARE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons assigned in the application and found them to be satisfactory, IA No.1, application for condonation of delay, is allowed and delay of 75 days in filing this revision is condoned.

(2.) The present revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, in Sessions Trial No.H-02/2016, whereby the court below has framed charge against the applicant for the offence under Sections 294, 506- Part-II, 307/34, 325/34 and 427 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that so far as offence under Sections 307 and 325 IPC are concerned, there is no material whatsoever in the entire charge sheet which could bring home the offence under these two sections. He submits that neither is there any grievous injury found on the injured Anil Vaishnav and nor is there any attempt to murder made by the applicant so as to attract the offence under Section 307 IPC. Further, referring to Dehati Nalisi and FIR, he submits that the complainant themselves state it to be an accident and therefore it cannot be an offence under Section 307 IPC. Thus, prayed for quashing of the charge levelled against the applicant.