LATEEF KHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the framing of charge against the petitioners under section 307/34 I.P.C.

(2.) THE learned trial Court considering the prosecution allegations of the assault of injured Gulab Singh filed a challan against four persons including the two petitioners under sections 295, 341, 307, 323 and 506 (Later Part) read with section 34 I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class finding the prosecution allegations attracting section 307, I.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioners under sections 341 and 307/34 I.P.C. The other two co -accused persons, who are not the petitioners in this Court, were charged for the offences under section 506 (Later Part), I.P.C. The framing of the charges against the petitioners under section 307/34, I.P.C. is challenged in this Court and Shri K.S. Tomar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has very forcefully contended that there was no material or the circumstances for the Court below to frame the charge under section 307/34, I.P.C. against the petitioners. It is contended that on the medical examination of Gulab Singh, the injured, the doctor found only two injuries, out of which one was an abrasion and the other was a lacerated wound. Both the injuries were on the legs. The injured was referred for X -ray examination and a hair -line fracture was detected in the right fabula lower part. The allegation of the injured that he was assaulted on his head has not been corroborated from the medical report. If the assailants had the intention to kill the injured, they had the time and opportunity to cause serious injuries on the vital parts of the body. The nature of injuries that too on the lower part of the body go to disclose that the assailants intended to cause injuries, but cannot be said to have the intention of killing the injured. The intention of assailants has to be gathered from the circumstances and out of the relevant circumstances, the nature of injuries, number of injuries and the number of persons as also the weapon used by them being relevant go to provide the important clue in that regard. The injured was found to have suffered only two injuries those too on the lower part of his body. No injury was found on any vital part of the injured, nor any injury was dangerous to life. Though the assailants were four in number, yet only two are alleged to have played the active role. The cumulative consideration of the circumstances go to clearly indicate that assailants had no intention to do away with the injured. At the stage of charge the prosecution evidence is not to be meticulously considered. But at the same time, the prosecution allegations can also not be taken as the gospel truth. The Court before framing the charges, is required to consider, if there is a strong suspicion of the commission of offence by the accused persons for which the charge is sought to be framed.