ABHISHEK ALIAS BITTU Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. petitioners Abhishek Yadav and Anuj Yadav have challenged order dated 18/2/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 71/2014 framing charges for offence under Sections 307 /34, 294 of the IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 20/12/2013 at 10p.m.in the night complainant Mayank r/o 555 Kalani Nagar, Indore was standing along with his friends Shubham and Vinod near Brilliant Coaching Class Kalani Nagar when accused petitioners Abhishek @ Bittu Yadav r/o Kalani Nagar along with his brother Anuj Yadav came there and asked them why they are standing there and started hurling filthy abuses and suddenly accused Anuj Yadav took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed the complainant with an intention to commit murder, due to which he received injuries on the left ear and head the second blow was cast on the hand and he received injury to his fingers. Accused Abhishek Yadav assaulted by lathy and thereafter both of the accused persons fled from the place. The incident was witnessed by Shubham and Vinod. The crime was registered for offence under Sections 307/34 and 294 of the IPC. The accused persons were arrested and the matter was put up before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who took cognizance against the accused and thereafter the matter was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge,who framed charges against them.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that the complainant has suffered simple injuries and offence under Sections 307/34 of the IPC cannot be made out against the accused petitioners and there was no intention to cause murder. To bolster his submissions, Counsel Yaqub Nayta and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.,2011 CrLR 206 to state that when one simple injury found on the vital part of the body this Court has set aside the order and the trial Court was directed to reframe the charge. Relying on Vallabh @ Dinesh Sharma and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,2008 CrLR 392, Counsel urged that this Court has held that by nature of injuries it cannot be said that intention of assailants was to commit murder of these two injured persons. It was alleged that 13 persons inflicted injuries to injured by farsa, iron rod etc. but only 5 injures found on body of injured. Except one all other injuries on nonvital part of body. None of the injuries found grievous in nature. Then order framing of charges under Section 307 of the IPC ought to be set aside and in the alternative a lessor offence i.e. offence under Sections 325 of the IPC may be imposed. Counsel further relied on Vardichand vs. Rameshwar and others, 2006 CrLR 202 whereby the Court has ordered discharge of the accused for offence under Section 307 of the IPC since only one injury found on vital part of body of injured person that too was simple injury and other injuries were on nonvital parts of body. No fracture found on the body of both injured persons and there was no intention to cause death and this Court has held that the Sessions Judge was justified in discharging accused persons from offence under Section 307 of the IPC.