GULAB Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants/accused have preferred this revision under section read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by Order dated 17.10.11 passed by the IInd ASJ, Damoh in S.T. No. 263/11 framing charges against each of them for the offence of section 307/34, 325, 323 and 506(11) of the IPC. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the on dated 18.4.2011 victim Smt. Kavita Bai wife of Kanai Ahirwal lodged the FIR at police outpost Sagatnaka, P.S. Sagar Dehat contending that her husband gave Rs. 1000/- to applicant No. 1 Gulab Sarpanch of the village under an assurance that he will provide him a 'Kuteer' (hut). But after receiving such sum, no such Kutter was given to them and, on demanding the said money back from applicant No. 1, he tried to beat her husband and today in the morning again such atmosphere was created by applicant No. 2 Harchandra. Thereafter when she along with her husband was returning to her residence, on the way out of the village, applicant No. 2 Harchandra lashed with Farsa and applicant No. 1 Gulab lashed with sticks anticipated them and started their beating by means of Farsa and stick, resultantly, they sustained the injuries on different parts of their person. The names of witnesses is also stated in the FIR. On such information, the offence under section 307, 341 and 34 of the IPC was registered as Crime No. 0/11. On sending such FIR to the main police station, the original Crime No. 165/11 was registered. After holding the investigation, the applicants were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offence. On evaluation of the charge sheet, the charge of sections 307, 325/34, 323 and 506(11) against the applicant No. 1 while the charge of section 307/34, 325, 323 and 506-11 of the IPC were framed. They abjured the guilt and thereafter they have come to this court with this revision for setting aside the same and discharging the applicants.

(2.) Shri Prajapati, learned appearing counsel after taking me through the copy of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and framed charges said that even on taking into consideration the face value of the charge sheet including the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims and the other medical evidence as accepted in its entirety, the charge of section 307 or 307 read with section 34 of the IPC is not made out against any of the applicants. It is also noted that he has not assailed the charges framed by the trial court for the offence under section 325, 323 and 506-11 of the IPC and prayed to discharge the applicants from such charge of section 307 and 307/34 of the IPC respectively by allowing this revision.

(3.) On the other hand, responding the aforesaid argument, Smt. Nirmala Nayak, GA by justifying the impugned order said that the charges framed by the trial court being in consonance with the papers of the charge sheet, does not require any interference at this stage either for discharging the applicants or to replace any of charge of other sections of the IPC. However, she fairly stated that in the MLC report as well as the x-ray report whatsoever injuries and fracture are stated, no one could be treated to be sufficient to cause death of the human being in the ordinary course of the nature and prayed to decide this revision accordingly.