SAGEER & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, preferred by the petitioners/accused is directed against an order dated 1 st October, 2011 in Sessions Case No. 212/2011 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.), framing thereby charges against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147/149, 148/149, 323/149, 307/149, 294, 341 and 506-B of I.P.C.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case, just for the decision of this petition are that on the fateful day on 15 th May 2011, at about 10-30 p.m., when the son of complainant Purushottam was returning back to his house after closing his hotel then on the way leading to the street of Criminal Revision No.911/11 Dr. Ganpat village Ghosipura, all accused, namely, Shamma, Sageer, Jahir, Irsad, Kalim, and Siddiq met him. They asked him to provide milk and curd free of cost. When he refused to accept their request, the accused started abusing and quarrellings with him. Hearing the noise, complainant came to his rescue. At that time, accused Shamma with an intention to kill his son, inflicted 4-5 knife blows, which were received by Purushottam on various parts of his body. When Omi came to save Purushottam, he was also beaten by the accused by means of sticks. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. The injured were sent for medical examination. It is stated that since Purushottam received grievous injuries, he was shifted to Sahara Hospital Gwalior. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Criminal Court. On committal in trial, the charges as mentioned above, were framed against the accused. Hence, this revision.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the order framing charge against the accused/petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and against the settled principles of law, hence, same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that as per charge-sheet papers, accused Shamma was the author of the crime whereas the present accused/petitioners were alleged only to have inflicted blows by means of Lathis to injured Omi. No injuries sustained by injured Purushottam were attributed to the petitioners. Hence, the charge with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. to section 307 I.P.C. against the petitioners is not correct. It is, therefore, prayed that the revision may be allowed and the impugned charges Criminal Revision No.911/11 framed against the petitioners may be quashed.