BRAHMANAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution story is that the accused Ramanlal bore enmity against Prakash chandra Bansal of village Bhuswawar, District Bharatpur. On February 17, 1966. Ramanlal and his son Brahamanand caused injuries on the head of Prakash chandra with a 'pharsi' and a 'tanchia' respectively. Haricharan, P. W. 3, and Kaila prasad alias Natar, P. W. 1, witnessed the occurrence. Prakash Chandra was medically examined on the date of the incident at about 6. 45 p. m. by Dr. Anant narain Sharma, P. W. 6, Medical Officer, Bayana. Following injuries were found on his person:-1. Lacerated wound with contused edges and edima all round 2"x 1/4"x 1/2" on right side of scalp half an inch anterior to right parietal eminence obliquely; 2. Lacerated wound with contused edges and surrounding edima exposing skull bone in all its length 1 3/4 x 1/2" x 3/4" on left side of scalp obliquely from left parietal eminence medially and backwards. Both the Injuries were caused with a blunt object and were simple in nature. The doctor was further of the opinion that had the patient not been attended In time medically, it was possible that the Injuries might have proved dangerous to life. First information report of the occurrence was lodged with the police station. Bhusawar, by Ramjilal on February 18, 1966. The police, after investigation, submitted a challan against Brahamanand under Sections 307 and 323, I. P. C. , in the Court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Bayana. It did not put any charge-sheet against Ramanlal. The Additional Munsiff-Magistrate. took cognizance of the offences against Ramanlal under Section 190, Criminal P. C. , on July 9, 1966. On the prosecution evidence having been closed, the trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, reached the conclusion, on September 27, 1968, that no prima facie case was made out against the accused persons under Section 307, i. P. C. and that the accused should be charged for voluntarily causing simple hurt to Prakash Chandra under Section 323, I. P. C. , triable by himself. That order was assailed in the Court of the sessions Judge, Bharatpur, through a revision application filed on behalf of Ramjilal, It was submitted to the learned sessions Judge, that a prima facie case had been made out against the accused persons under Section 307, I. P. C. , and that the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate went wrong in not committing the accused to the Court of the Sessions Judge for trial under that section. Learned Sessions Judge. Bharatpur, by his judgment, dated April 26, 1969, set aside the order of learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, bayana, dated September 27, 1968, and directed that Court to commit the accused persons to face trial under Section 307, I. P. C.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the above order, the accused Brahamanand and Ramanlal have filed this revision petition. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, committed a serious mistake of law and fact in setting aside the order of discharge for offence under Section 307 i. P. C, and directing the case to be committed to his Court. Learned counsel has further argued that from the evidence on the record the ingredients of Section 307, I. P. C. , are not made out, there being no evidence to suggest that the injuries were caused with the intention to cause death. The medical report disclosed that the in juries caused were simple and that they were inflicted with blunt objects. The medical opinion given by Dr. Anant Narain Sharma is in conflict with the version of the eye-witnesses, who have stated that the injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapons. In the end, it was submitted that the order of learned Sessions Judge, Bharat-pur, dated April 26, 1969, setting aside the order of discharge made by the Additional munsiff-Magistrate, Bayana, be quashed. Learned counsel for the side opposite vehemently argued that a case under Section 307. I. P. C. , is clearly made out against the accused persons. His further contention is that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hold that an offence under Section 307, I. P. C. , is not made out against the accused and that he was not competent to try the case for an offence under Section 323, I. P. C. , only. According to learned counsel if no prime facie case was made out against the accused, the Magistrate could have totally discharged the accused on all counts. He could not have clutched at the jurisdiction of the Court of session by ordering that he would try the case for a minor offence.

(3.) ACCORDING to P. W. 1 Kaila Prasad, Ramanlal had a 'pharsi' with him and brahamanand was armed with a 'tanchia'. Both of them assaulted Prakash chandra Bansal with their respective weapons. Raman's weapon first struck against the shutters of the door and then it fell on the scalp of Prakash Chandra, with the result that he sustained injuries. Almost to the same effect are the statements of Prakash Chandra P. W 2, and Haricharan, P. W. 3. Haricharan has pointedly said that the injuries sustained by Prakash Chandra were caused with sharp edged weapons. Dr. Anant Narain Sharma, Medical Officer, Bayana, P. W. 6 has categorically deposed that the injuries caused to the victim were simple in nature and were the result of the impact of a blunt object. In the first information report filed by Ramjilal, on February 18, 1966, at 10. 15 a. m. , at the police station, bhusawar, it is given that both the accused caused injuries with a 'pharsi' and a 'tanchia'. It is not mentioned therein that the Injuries were caused with blunt objects. P. W. 4 Dal Chand, on the other hand, has said that Brahamanand hit Prakash Chandra with a hockey-stick and then he went away and that none else beat Prakash chandra in his presence. He has further said that Ramanlal was not present at the time of the occurrence. From the evidence discussed above it is plain that two types of versions have been made by the witnesses. Some of the witnesses have stated that the injuries were caused with a 'pharsi' and 'tanchia'. The other set of evidence suggests that the injuries were caused with a blunt object, i. e. , with a hockey stick.