HARIOM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the supervisory powers of this Court under Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have preferred this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 8.10.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No.249/2013, whereby charges under Sections 294, 307 and 307/34 of IPC have been framed against the petitioners.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in short, is that complainant Sundar Singh has lodged a report that a dispute is going on for the last 2 -3 months between him and the petitioners as they had installed a submersible pump in the government hand -pump and the complainant got it removed. On 11.3.2013 at about 7.20 pm when the complainant was in the house alongwith his family, the petitioners, his neighbours, by taking his name were abusing him. As soon as the complainant alongwith his son Ajay Pratap came out from the house, petitioner Amar Singh with intention to kill the complainant fired from his 12 bore gun which hit on the rim of tractor and from that something hit at the chest of the complainant by which blood started oozing and he fell down. Thereafter, when the petitioners came near to him, Pancham Singh, Ajay Pratap and Dinesh saved him. After registration of the FIR, police conducted the investigation and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge -sheet in the Court of JMFC, Bhind, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhind, and vide impugned order dated 8.10.2013, learned Sessions Judge, framed the charges for the aforementioned offences against the petitioners. Hence, this revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that ingredients for the offence under Section 307 of IPC are not made out. He further submitted that learned Trial Court, before framing the charge, did not consider the medical report of complainant/injured. In continuation, he further submitted that according to MLC Report complainant/injured Sunder Singh has sustained simple injury which was caused by hard and blunt object. He further submitted that there is difference between medical evidence and complainant's report which shows that false report has been made against the petitioners. It is also submitted that as per medical report, no such injury was found to have been caused to the complainant/injured which is dangerous to life. Hence, he prayed that the charges framed against the petitioners be set aside and petitioners be discharged from the charges u/s 307 of IPC.