NARENDRA KUMAR ALIAS RASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order, framing the charge for the offence under Section 326 IPC. The case was initially, registered for the offence under S. 324 IPC. On a report lodged at Police Station, Karauli, by one Kanhaiyalal, that he had already obtained MLR No. 397 and the police registered the case under S. 324 IPC. The injured Gyanesh, had one injury on the middle of the left hand from base of thumb upto left little finger. The injury is alleged to have been caused by sharp edged weapon but was shown to be simple in nature. Thereafter, X-Ray was conducted by Doctor, P.P. Singhal, who did not find any fracture and it continued to be a simple injury after 10 days, when a supplementary report was obtained from the same Doctor, who had given the earlier report and this time he stated that I found that the flexor thumb of four fingers of the left hand were found cut and have been reptured. The movements of the fingers and the thumb of his left hand are only very slightly present. He is still under treatment. He called it to be a grievous injury caused by sharp edged weapon for two reasons;

(2.) In fact, this Court normally does not interfere at this stage. Moreso, in a case like this one; where even the revision petition was maintainable. This petition thus required no adjudication of this Court at this stage because the trial is going on before the learned Judicial Magistrate, but at the same time it may be observed that when mechanically the charge is framed in gross violation of the provisions of law, this Court cannot be silent spectator and in order to secure ends of justice, is obliged to interfere. It is one of the clause of S. 320 IPC which is required to be attracted if a case is to be brought within the purview of S. 326 IPC as there should exist grievous hurt as defined in S. 320 IPC. The prosecution has tried to bring the case within clause (5) by showing that it is a case of destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any membrane or joint. Doctor has not mentioned even in his revised report that the impairment was of permanent nature. None of the 3 injuries bring the case in any of the clause mentioned in S. 320 IPC. It would be unnecessarily travesty of justice to keep the case hanging for the offence under S. 326 IPC. The learned Magistrate, has gone be the word of mouth of Dr. Surajmal Gupta, rather than looking to the nature of injury. Dr. Surajmal Gupta, had given an earlier report, which was given by him on private request and later he revised his opinion for reasons best known but this time also not basing his conclusions on scientific datas as a result of which, charge has wrongly been framed.

(3.) The result of the above discussions is that the petition is allowed and the charge for the offence under S. 326 IPC is quashed. The learned Magistrate, snail frame the fresh charge in accordance with law. The accused petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate, within fortnight.