(1.) THIS Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 18 -12 -96 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Session Trial No. 3 of 1996 rejecting the objection of the revisionists and directing the framing of charge under Section 304 I.P.C.
(2.) IT is undisputed that there was some incident of marpeeth between the parties on 28 -3 -95 which took place at about 5 p.m. On the side of the revisionists one Brijesh Kumar (revisionist) No. 2, sustained injuries,whereas, on the side of prosecution, one Shri Ram Murat Pathak, who died subsequently sustained injuries. Report of the incident was lodged from both the sides at P.S. Mariahu. The injured were also medically examined. Shri Ram Murat Pathak was found having three injuries - one lacerated wound, one abrasion and one contusion. His medical examination was done on 28 -3 -95 at about 7 p.m. His second medical examination was also done under the orders of the Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Jaunpur on 29 -3 -95. It is said that the condition of Shri Ram Murat Pathak worsened. He was admitted in the District Hospital on 8 -4 -95 and died there on 9 -4 -95. In the post -mortem, which was conducted at 4.30 p.m. on 10 -4 -95, the cause of death was found to be Septicemic shock as a result of perforation and peritonitis. It appears that a charge sheet under Section 304/34, 323/34, 325/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Sections 304 I.P.C was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Before framing charge, the revisionists filed an objection stating that no offence under Section 304 I.P.C. was made -out and the case was not triable by the Court of Sessions. This objection was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order. He held that there was sufficient ground for framing charge against revisionists under Section 304/34 I.P.C. He, accordingly, fixed a date for framing of the charges under Section 304/34, 323/34, 325/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.
(3.) IT is urged by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that there was no material to show that the death of the deceased was a direct cause of the injuries allegedly inflicted by the revisionists. The death had taken place on account of Septicaemic shock and due to perforation and peritonitis. Referring to Dorland's Medical Dictionary, learned Counsel submits that perforation means the act of piercing a hole through a part and peritonitis means inflamation of the peritoneum and Septicemia means marbid condition due to presence and reproduction of pithogine bacteria in the blood. It is further submitted that from the aforesaid meanings, it is evident that the revisionists have nothing to do with the death of the deceased and the death might have taken place due to ulcer in the abdominal portion or for some other reason including the not proper treatment and the revisionists can not be held liable for the same and the learned Special Judge proceeded to frame the charges despite the fact that there was no evidence that the deceased has died as a consequence of injury allegedly inflicted by the revisionists and that no external injury was found on the abdomen of the deceased.