RAMKISHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sec. 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dtd. 26/9/2022 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Special Case No.41/2022 by which the charges under Ss. 294, 148, 452, 450, 324, 323/149, 326/149, 323, 323/149 (six counts), 506 Part - II of IPC have been framed.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the applicants are merely aggrieved by the charge framed by the Trial Court under Sec. 326 of IPC. By referring to the opinion given by the District Prosecution Officer, Datia, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the offence under Sec. 326 of IPC was added only on the opinion of District Prosecution Officer which was to the effect that since the complainant has suffered fracture of tibia and fibula bone of left leg which was caused to him by an iron rod and since an iron rod is a dangerous weapon, therefore, prima facie offence under Sec. 326 of IPC is made out.

(3.) By referring to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu vs. State of M.P. decided on 3/12/2008 in Criminal Appeal No.1956/2008 and judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Bijender @ Naushad vs. State decided on 13/2/2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.414/2013, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that whether the weapon of offence was a deadly weapon or a dangerous weapon has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalization can be done. It is submitted that since the assault was made on the left leg of the complainant, therefore, there was no intention to cause death of the complainant. Under these circumstances, an iron rod cannot be said to be a dangerous weapon.