SURENDRA BISHNOI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 3/12/2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 31/2020 whereby, the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Ss. 498A, 406, 323, 316 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent No. 2, the accused petitioner was chargesheeted for offence under Ss. 498A, 406, 323, 316 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, where arguments on charge were heard and after hearing the arguments, learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Ss. 498A, 406, 323, 316 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the extent of framing charges for offence under Sec. 316 IPC and submits that the trial Court has committed an error of law in framing charge for offence under Sec. 316 IPC inasmuch as, there is no evidence on record that the accused petitioner caused any injury on abdomen of injured resulting in miscarriage. Even in the statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. on 1/1/2019 no averment was made by the injured in this regard. However, on the next day, i.e. 2/1/2019, an allegation was levelled that accused petitioner gave fist blows on her abdomen due to which miscarriage happened. Counsel submits that according to opinion of Medical board, possibility of abortion due to trauma on lower abdomen in early pregnancy is rare. Thus, the trial Court has not properly looked into the matter and therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court to the extent of framing charge for offence under Sec. 316 IPC is liable to be set aside.