RAMKESH MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. In these proceeding under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , one out of the three accused in the case complains that the Trial Judge (Additional Sessions Judge) Fast Track Court-IV, Jaunpur has framed a charge under Sections 308/34, 504,506 and Section 323/34 I. P. C. , while according to the doctor, the injuries sustained by the two injured ladies are simple in nature and, therefore, a charge under Section 308 I. P. C. was unjustified and charge should have been framed under Section 323 I. P. C. and the Trial should have taken place before the Magistrate.

(2.) I have heard Sri S. K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri R. K. Maurya, Additional Government Advocate for the State.

(3.) SINCE the injury has been described by the doctor as simple and since we have no sufficient reason to assume otherwise, the charge should have been under Section 323 I. P. C. It would not be appropriate to frame a charge under Section 308 I. P. C. as a precautionary measure because that would deprive the accused of one tier of appeal. In case the charge is under Section 308 I. P. C. it would be tried by the Court of Sessions and appeal will lie to the High Court while if the charge is under Section 323 I. P. C. , the case be tried by the Magistrate and appeal will lie to the Sessions Court.