BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANTS have filed this revision against the order dated 13. 3. 2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, in Sessions Trial No. 162/06, framing charges against applicants under Sections 307, 294, 506, 323 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submits that from the facts and evidence on record prima-facie no case for framing charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It cannot be said that merely because an air pistol was used for causing injury, it was necessarily a case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the facts lack to give inference about the intention of the applicant to commit murder of the injured, therefore, trial Court committed error in framing charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, vehemently opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, submits that from the facts and circumstances of the case particularly from the fact that a gun was used for causing the injury, prima-facie case for framing charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal code was made out. Trial Court committed no error in framing the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants.

(3.) ACCORDING to prosecution, complainant Bhura Nauriya had borrowed rs. 2600/-from Bahadur Pachauri. AT about 6. 30 p. m. on 16. 7. 2006, he went at the shop of Dharamraj Agrawal and called Bahadur Pachaury for giving back his money. When Bahadur Pachauri came there with Prakash dixit, Halke, the elder brother of Bhura gave money to Bahadur. After receiving money, Bahadur Pachauri hurled filthy abuses to him saying as to why he called him there instead of coming to his house for giving money and assaulted him. In the meantime, accused Dhananjay also reached there and both of them then assaulted him by fists and kicks. They took him towards the house of Bahadur Pachauri, where Bahadur took out an air pistol and fired at him, as a result of which, he suffered a pellet injury on his left thigh. Bhura went to Police Station, Saikheda and lodged the report. Police registered an offence under Sections 294, 306, 323 and 324/34 of the indian Penal Code. Bhura was sent for medical examination. According to his injury report, he suffered two injuries; one was a penetrating injury on left lower 1/3rd of thigh on anterior part measuring 1x1/2x1 cm and second injury was a mild swelling on right eye. As per injury report, injuries were simple in nature. It was observed by the doctor that no smoke or smell from the wound was found. During the medical examination, a pellet was seized by the doctor and was handed over to police. Police sent the same for examination with a query as to whether the injuries found on the body of bhura could have been caused by a projectile of 32 bore and whether it could be dangerous to life. Doctor replied the query saying that "it was possible". Opinion of Assistant Armourer was also sought that the seized projectile was of 32 bore. However, no weapon was seized at the instance of accused/applicants.