PARMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 has been preferred by the accused/petitioners having been aggrieved by an order dated 3rd January 2013 issued in Sessions Case No. 530/2012 by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior (M.P.), framing thereby charges against the petitioners/accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 294, 336, 506 Part -II and 307 of I.P.C. and in alternative under Section 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. Bare facts necessary for the decision of this revision petition are that on 14th July 2012 at about 10 a.m., at B.P. City, village Padampur, complainant Ashok Singh went to his field situated in the same village. It is alleged that at that juncture all the accused namely, Sonu, Parmal, Vidyaram, Mukesh armed with their guns reached on the spot and hurled abuses to him. When the complainant objected and restrained the accused, they started firing from their arms with an intention to kill him. However, the complainant somehow saved himself. One of the bullets hit to his Scorpio Car. The other vehicles were also badly damaged by the accused with pelting stones. When other persons from village rushed to the spot, the accused fled away after threatening the complainant to kill in the event of lodging report with the police. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant against the accused. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and after committal, the trial was commenced. The learned trial Judge after considering the statements and the material available on record, framed the charges against the accused for the alleged offences as mentioned above, hence, this revision.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused is that on perusal of the FIR, case -diary statements of the victim and other witnesses, no case for framing of charges against the petitioners is made out. It is argued that from perusal of material available on record it is implicit that all accused were present on the spot. They fired shots only with an intention to endanger human life or for personal safety of the complainant and never attempted to cause death of the complainant. They did not intent to fire at the complainant nor caused any injury to him. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the approach of the learned trial court appears to be wholly mechanical and therefore, the order based on such approach is liable to be set aside. On these premised submissions, it is prayed that by allowing the petition, the charges framed against the accused may be set aside.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Also perused the material placed on record and the law applicable to the case.