Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
M.A.Siddiqui, J.
Vijendra Singh and others - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 936-2009
Decided On : 02-12-2011
Section 307 IPC - Criminal Jurisdiction - [Section 307 IPC] - The court discussed the application of Section 307 IPC in the context of the facts of the case and emphasized the importance of establishing intention to kill as the main ingredient for framing charges under Section 307 IPC. The court also referred to previous cases to highlight the significance of the use of deadly weapons and the assessment of intention in determining the applicability of Section 307 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute where the petitioners were charged under Section 307 of IPC for allegedly causing grievous injuries to the complainant and others. The trial court rejected the plea of the petitioners that the case under Section 307 IPC was not made out and framed charges against them. The petitioners filed a criminal revision feeling aggrieved against the trial court's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of the trial court was improper, incorrect, and passed without the application of mind. It held that the framing of charges under Section 307 IPC was against the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the charges under Section 307 IPC were set aside, and the petitioners were discharged from the charges under Section 307 IPC. The trial court was directed to send the case to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class for trial and disposal according to law.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the application of Section 307 IPC and the determination of whether the petitioners should be charged under this section based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the intention to kill is the main ingredient to be seen for the purpose of framing charges under Section 307 IPC. It also highlighted the significance of the use of deadly weapons and the assessment of intention in determining the applicability of Section 307 IPC.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the charges under Section 307 IPC were set aside. The petitioners were discharged from the charges under Section 307 IPC, and the trial court was directed to send the case to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class for trial and disposal according to law.
Hon'ble Shri M.A. Siddiqui, J.
1. The criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 397/ 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure feeling aggrieved against the Order dated 12.05.2009, passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ashta, District-Sehore, in Sessions Trial No. 176/08 by which prayer of the petitioners has been rejected and charges have been framed under Section 307 of IPC against petitioners.
2. In short, the facts are that ST No. 176/08 which was registered for Crime No. 265/08 by PS-Ashta, District-Sehore was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ashta, District Sehore by JMFC, Ashta for alleged offence punishable under Section 341, 307, 323, 325 read with section 34 of IPC. At the stage of framing of charge, it was vehemently agitated that prima facie case under section 307 IPC was not made out, so Sessions Court has got no jurisdiction to try the offence, offence was at the most under Section 325/ 34 IPC and police has wrongly registered the case under Section 307 IPC against the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, the complainant party and prosecution were of the view that prima facie case under Section 307 IPC is made out. From both the sides, the matter was strongly agitated.
3. Trial Court, on 12.05.09, rejected the plea of petitioners that case under Section 307 IPC was not made out, and taken the cognizance, and charge under Section 307 IPC was framed on the petitioners, against that order, this petition has been filed.
4. I have heard both the sides and perused the documents on record.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that as per FIR dated 7.5.08 the incident took place at about 6.30 AM, matter was reported by Jagdish Mewda that he was sitting in front of his house along with his uncle Charan Singh and Kishore Singh, then Vijjendra Singh, Yogendra Singh, Kamal Singh and Shiv Narayan, all residents of Loras Khurd, came there armed with lathis and started beating Charan Singh by means of lathis with an intention to kill him. In the incident, Charan Singh suffered grievous injury on his head. Jagdish and Kishore Singh intervened, they were also beaten by means of lathis and they suffered simple injuries. Report was written in Rojnamcha Sanha No.575 on 7.5.08 and injured were sent for their medical examination. Charan Singh was sent for further treatment to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal where he was admitted, and then he himself took the discharge and went to L.B.S. Hospital, Bhopal, a private hospital, where he got himself examined and his CT-scan was done and it was found that there was linear fracture on his temporal region. A counter report was also lodged by petitioner Vijendra Singh on the same day for which crime no. 265/08 was registered for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 427/ 34 IPC against Jagdish Mewada, Charan Singh, Kishore Singh and three others.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out. Police, for the reasons best known to them, has registered the case directly under Section 307 IPC without even medical examination and there was no intention to kill at all which can be gathered from the acts of petitioners. Petitioners came with lathis, had their intention was to kill Charan Singh, they would have come with some deadly weapon and several injuries would have been caused.
Injury on the head for which X-ray was advised by hospital at Ashta and by Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, Charan Singh was not examined, rather he took discharge against the advise and got himself admitted in a private hospital where he procured CT-scan X-ray. Counsel further submitted that lathis (sticks) cannot be termed to be a deadly weapon. The village people used to keep lathis with them, and by its use, it cannot be attributed that intention to kill was there.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for State and objector have submitted that at the time of framing of charge, no m
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
