ROOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants/accused have preferred this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2011 passed by Special Judge (Constituted under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the Act') Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 84/11, framing the charges against each of them for the offence of Sections 147, 148, 186/ 149, 353, 307, 333/149, 332 and 294 of I.P.C. and also of Section 3 (v) of the Act. The facts givingrise to this revision in short are that on dated 14.3.2011, at about 10.30 in the night Amar Singh, Head Constable posted at Police out post Athawan of Police Station Varaytha lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Varaytha contending that he along with Constable Arvind Yadav and Anand Pratap after taking their meals was taking rest in the police out Post, at about 10.20 P.M. the applicants accompanied with other 15 to 20 persons lashed with Katarna, the sharp edged weapons, Ballam, (Spear) a sharp edged pointed weapons and sticks due to earlier enmities on account of some old report, by entering in the police out-Post in furtherance of their common object, started violence. On asking them the reason in this regard on which, the applicant no. 1 Jhallu Raja gave a blow of Katarna on him with intention to cause his death consequently, he sustained the injury on his head with bleedings. He shouted for help on which, the abovementioned Arvind and Anand Pratap, taking rest, came to rescue him, then said Constable Arvind, was subjected to blow of Katarna by the applicants no. 2 Makhan Singh resultantly, he also sustained the hurt on his head with bleeding. Simultaneously, the Constable Anand Pratap was subjected to blow of lathi by co-accused Bade Lodhi resultantly, he sustained the injury in his leg. As per further averments, by the abovementioned acts, the applicants accompanied the other co-accused have created the obstruction in discharging their duties as police officials. It was also stated that the complainant-Amar Singh, was also humiliated and harassed by the applicants along with the co-accused on account of his caste covered under the Act. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the crime of the offence of Section 452, 334, 332, 294, 307, 147, 148, 149, 353 and 332 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (v) of the Act was registered against the applicants and other co-accused. After lodging the report, the victims were sent to the hospital where on medical examination their MLC reports were prepared. The victim Amar Singh and Arvind, were advised to carry out the X-ray of some injuries. On carrying out the same, no fracture was found on the person of Arvind while, the fracture in the 1st metacarpal of the right hand of Amar Singh, was revealed. After holding the investigation, the applicants along with other co-accused were charge-sheeted for their prosecution under the aforesaid Sections. After committing the case to the Sessions Court on framing the charges of the Sections mentioned in the first para of this order, the applicants abjured the guilt and being dissatisfied with such order, has come to this Court with this revision.

(2.) Applicants' counsel Shri R.S. Patel, after taking me through the certified copy of the charge-sheet placed on the record along with the impugned order and the framed charges argued that on taking into consideration the face value of the entire charge-sheet as accepted in it's entirety, the charge of Section 307 or 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. are not made out and prayed for setting aside such charge framed by the trial Court. In continuation, he said that after framing the charge of Section 333/149 and 332/149 of I.P.C. the charges framed under Sections 186 and 353/149 of I.P.C. are not sustainable as the offence made punishable under Sections 186 and 353 of I.P.C. being minor offence of Section 333 and 332 of I.P.C. the charge of such Sections are included in Sections 333 and 332 of I.P.C. Therefore, the charges framed separately under such Sections i.e. 186/149 and 353/149 of I.P.C. deserves to be set aside. So far other charges are concerned, he fairly conceded that in view of the evidence available in the charge-sheet, the same does not require any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and prayed to allow this revision accordingly.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate by justifying the impugned order as well as the charges framed by the trial Court against the applicants said that the same being in consonance with the papers of the charge-sheet, does not require any interference either for setting aside the charge of Section 307/149 of I.P.C. or deleting the charges framed under Sections 186/149 and 353/149 of I.P.C. Besides this, he also argued that looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicants with the victims in furtherance of their common object by means of Katarna, sticks and Ballam (sphere), thus mere on the basis of nature of the injuries stated in their MLC reports and X-ray reports, it could not be said that the applicants have not committed the offence of Section 307 of I.P.C. According to him, taking into consideration the entire scenario, this was a fit case for framing the charge of Section 307 of I.P.C. against the applicants and in such premises, the trial Court has not committed any error and prayed for dismissal of this revision.