ABDUL RASEED Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29/1/2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2013 setting aside the order of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for framing of charges afresh.

(2.) Briefly stated; the prosecution case is that on 15/6/2010 complainant Rukhsar s/o Mohd. Haneef resident of Ujjain filed a report before the police station that there was a dispute between the accused persons and her mother Afsaribi regarding the house. The accused persons Raseed s/o Babu Khan and Iliyas s/o Raheez Khan hurled abuses and assaulted her mother and pelted stones by Iliyas and due to which she received head injury. The report was filed. Crime was registered bearing No. 213/2010 for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506 -B and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution was set in motion. The injured persons were sent to the medication examination. Injured Afsaribi subjected to X -ray and fracture being discovered the offence was enhanced to one under Section 325 of the IPC. After investigation the accused were arrested and duly committed to their trial. The accused persons abjured their guilt and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. However, they did not examine any defence witness. The Trial Court on considering the evidence, acquitted the accused persons from the offence under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC, however, convicted the accused for offence under Sections 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo three months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/ - each, in default of payment of the fine they were to undergo additional 15 days simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved the accused persons filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. However, the Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court for proper framing of charges and hence the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order.

(3.) Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that the learned Appellate Court had failed to consider that the petitioners have already been acquitted from the offence under Sections 294 and 506 -B of the IPC and the finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence. The order of remand would now subject the petitioners to fresh trial on all counts. The complainant would get a fresh handle to produce evidence against them for these offences from which they had already been acquitted. Such an order would amount to abuse of process of law and the applicants would be deprived of a fair trial. The Counsel also candidly stated that the accused applicants are not particularly aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court for framing charges for offence under Section 325 of the IPC. Counsel however submitted that the incident is of the year 2010. The injured witnesses have already recovered and the dispute arose on a petty matter. Hence Counsel prayed that both the orders of the lower Courts be set aside and the accused be acquitted from all the offences under these circumstances. Moreover, Counsel submitted that the Trial Court had also observed in para 22 of the impugned judgment that the accused persons belong to a poor family and the entire family is suffering, if the matter is remanded, it would cause undue hardship to them also. Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside.