SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(MP) 1327

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
U.C. Maheshwari, J.
Achhelal Choudhary and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Cri. Rev. No. 271 of 2011
Decided On : 07-12-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Devendra Singh Baghel
For the Respondents:Yogesh Dhande, Dy. Government Advocate

The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of injuries and medical evidence to determine appropriate charges against the accused.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code - Charges Framed - Sections 341, 294, 307, 307/34, 323, 506-II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act)

Fact of the Case:

The accused were charged with various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) for assaulting and causing injuries to the victims. The accused sought revision of the charges framed against them.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the charge of section 307 and/or 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, directing the trial court to frame the charge of section 325 and/or 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused with respect to the injuries of one victim. The court affirmed the other findings and charges framed by the trial court.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accused should be charged with section 307 and/or 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code based on the nature of injuries sustained by the victims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of injuries sustained by the victims and the medical evidence to determine the appropriate charges against the accused. It concluded that the injuries did not warrant the charge of section 307 and/or 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but justified the charge of section 325 and/or 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Final Decision: The revision was partly allowed, setting aside the charge of section 307 and/or 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directing the trial court to frame the charge of section 325 and/or 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused with respect to the injuries of one victim.

Judgment

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

1. The applicants/accused has preferred this revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by Order dated 11-1-2011 passed by the Court of Special Judge (constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) (in short 'the Act'), Satna in S.T. No. 71/10 framing charges against them for the offence of sections 341, 294 (two counts), 307, 307/34, 323 (two counts),506-II of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the on dated 5-2-2010 at about 11 O' Clock in the night, the complainant Rambiswas Choudhary lodged the FIR at P.S. Singhpur district Satna contending that at about 9.30 in the night, victim Krishna Kumar Mishra was at his field situated near river Garda. Rajesh alias Bhaiya Chaturvedi, Achchelal Choudhary and Jainarayan were also sitting in the adjoining field. At the same time, when Krishna Kumar Mishra was coming from his motorcycle, on the way near the field known in the name of 'Paiha', said Rajesh alias Bhaiya lashed with Farsa, Achchelal lashed with an Axe, Dadoman and Jainarayan lashed with sticks stopped him and asked the whereabouts of the Sarpanch. On saying by Krishna Kumar that he does not know about him then all the aforesaid culprits by abusing him with filthy language started his beating. Achchelal Choudhary gave the blow of Axe on the head of the victim Krishna Kumar while the blow of Farsa was given on his head by Rajesh Chaturvedi. Applicant Dadoman and Jainarayan carried out his beating by means of sticks. When the complainant Rambishwas and Ramdhani went to rescue the victim Krishna Kumar then they were also subjected to beating by the applicants resultantly all victims had sustained injuries with bleeding on different parts of their persons. On their shouting, some of the villagers came there then by giving the criminal intimidation to kill the complainant and other injured, the applicants fled away. On the aforesaid report, the offence of sections 341, 294, 323 and 506-11 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicants. Subsequent to registration of the offence, the applicants were sent to the hospital where their MLC reports were prepared. Out of them, victim Krishna Kumar Mishra was referred for X-ray. On carrying-out the same, the fracture of ulna bone of right hand was revealed. In investigation it was also found that the alleged incident with Rambiswas was happened with intention to humiliate him on account of his caste "Charmakar" (Kumra) covered under the Act. On completion of the investigation, the applicants were charge-sheeted for the offence of sections 307, 341, 294, 324, 323, 506B, 427, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Act. On evaluation of the charge-sheet, the charge of sections 341, 294, 307, 307/34, 323 (two counts), 294, 506B of the Indian Penal Code and section3(1)(x) of the Act was framed against the applicants. They abjured the guilt and thereafter being aggrieved by such order have come to this court with this revision.

2. The applicants counsel after taking me through the copy of the charge-sheet along with the impugned order and framed charges said that even on taking into consideration the face value of the charge-sheet including the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims and the other medical evidence as accepted in its entirety, the charge of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against any of the applicants. So far the other framed charges are concerned, he has not made any submission for discharging them from such charges. For discharging the applicants from the offence of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, he categorically stated that the victim Rambiswas and Ramdhani had sustained the simple injuries as stated by the doctor in their MLC reports while in the MLC report of victim Krishna Kumar Mishra as many as 11 in













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top