KAMLESH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by order dated 10.2.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District- Ujjain in S.T. No. 584/2015, whereby the learned Court has framed charge u/s 307 IPC against them, the petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 397of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, on 01.6.2015, at the time of the incident, the complainant was walking with his daughter and granddaughter and going towards bus stand Jharda. Suddenly the accused, who is son-in-law of the complainant, with his two elder brothers came there and assaulted him with intent to kill him. He struck Lathi (bamboo stick) on his head and other parts of his body. The complainant sustained injuries on several parts of the body including the head. He was admitted to the hospital and treated there. The doctor opined that if he would not have received treatment on time, then the injuries sustained by him might have been fatal for life. The police filed the charge-sheet and the learned trial court framed the charge u/s 307 IPC.

(3.) The petitioners have come before this Court stating that the complainant did not sustain any injury dangerous to life. He was discharged from the hospital only after two days of admission on 03.06.2016. The opinion of the doctor is only based on his presumptions and there is no solid ground for this presumption. The accused Kailash has lameness in lower limb and is handicapped by his left foot and cannot even walk normally. The accused Kamlesh is having a defect that all his fingers of both hands are joined permanently. Therefore, the allegations against both the accused that they have assaulted and attacked and caused injuries to the complainant are unbelievable. The police have not seized blood stained shirt instead have seized a blood stained pant. In case of injury caused on head the flow of blood will stained the shirt instead of the lower trouser. This fact also shows that the case of the complainant is false. The learner trial court has committed error in framing the charge under section 307 IPC. Therefore, quashment of the same is prayed for.