BRAJESH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision, the applicant seeks following reliefs :

(2.) As per the prosecution case, on 20.09.2018 at about 6.30 p.m., when the complainant Suresh Prasad Mishra was sitting in front of his house at a kirana store, the respondents No.2 and 3 came there and assaulted him by means of lathies owing to some land dispute pertaining to Temple and when his son Brajesh Kumar Mishra, the present applicant, came forward to save him, respondent No.3 dealt a lathi blow on his head and other parts of the body and also threatened them with dire consequences. Thereafter, both the injured were sent to CHC Jatara and from where they were referred to District Hospital. Upon a report lodged by the complainant Suresh Prasad Mishra, an offence under Sections 323 , 294 , 324 , 506 read with 34 of the IPC was registered against the respondents No.2 and 3. However, considering the nature and situs of injuries received by the complainant and his son Brajesh Kumar Mishra, Sections 325 and 326 IPC were added in the charge sheet. Learned Court below vide impugned order discharged the respondents No.2 and 3 from the charge under Section 326 IPC as there is possibility that the injury sustained by the applicant could be dangerous to life.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara District Tikamgarh committed grave error in law in discharging the respondents No.2 and 3 from the charge under Section 326 IPC inasmuch as there is sufficient material on record to show that the accused persons had caused grievous injuries to the applicant. It is also contended that looking into the nature of injuries sustained by the applicant, additional charge under Section 307 IPC ought to be framed by the learned trial Court as the blow was on a vital part. Reference has also been made to the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of State of M.P. vs Harjeet Singh 2019 SCC Online SC 231, State of M.P. vs Kanha @ Omprakash 2019 SCC Online SC 120, State of M.P. vs Mohan (2013) 14 SCC 116, Jage Ram vs State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 366 and R. Prakash vs State of Karnataka (2004) 9 SCC 27. Attention has also been invited to the fact that the bail application filed by respondents No.2 and 3 was dismissed by the trial Court in view of the fact that in X-ray report, it was found that the applicant had sustained fracture in head and the injuries received by him could be dangerous to life. On these grounds, prayer is made to frame additional charge under Section 307 IPC or in the alternative, under Section 326 IPC ought to be framed.