IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the standard for framing charges, allowing for a prima facie case based on the evidence without requiring a full trial.

ORDER :

Heard.

This criminal revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner/accused being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 22-9-2023 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar in S.T. No. 150/2023 whereby, learned trial Court has framed charges under section 294, 302, 323 (6 counts) and 506 Part-II of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 11-6-2023 at around 8:00 PM, when the complainant Rahul Naik was walking and reached in front of the house of Mukesh, he saw that a quarrel had taken place between the petitioner Baga Bhagirath and Mukesh. When the complainant tried to intervene, then the petitioner abused him in filthy language. The complainant objected the same on which the petitioner assaulted him by kicks and fists. Uncle of complainant/ injured Kishan came to rescue the complainant, then the petitioner assaulted Kishan on his abdomen by kicks and fists. Wife of complainant Mamta Bai, sister-in-law (bhabhi) Urmila and Mayabai and Aunt Jhatibai also came there to exhort the petitioner, then he also abused them verbally and physically assaulted them. The petitioner gave life threat to the complainant party. The injured persons were taken to government hospital Kasrawad. The matter was reported on the same day by the complainant. The injured Kishan received grievous injury on his abdomen. Therefore, he was referred to Khargone. He was treated from 13-6-2023 – 15-6-2023 at Sundar Hospital, Khargone, thereafter he was admitted in Parul Sevashram Hospital, Vadodara, Gujarat. During treatment, on 25-6-2023, Kishan succumbed to his injuries.

3. After hearing both the parties on 22-9-2023, learned trial Court had framed charges against the petitioner as mentioned above.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order by which learned trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is bad in law and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. Learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the facts in the present case. It is further submitted that if the allegation of prosecution case is accepted, then too no offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that initially the FIR was lodged under section 294, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The deceased had died after around 14 days of the incident. As per post-mortem report, prima facie, the cause of death was not the injury inflicted by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner had no intention to kill the deceased. He did not use any weapon in the incident. Therefore, act of the petitioner comes only under section 323 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order in respect of framing of charge under section 302 is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions and supported the impugned order and has submitted that as per opinion given by the concerned doctor, injury received by the deceased was grievous in nature and also was dangerous to life. It is also submitted that after the incident, the deceased was continuously under treatment. As per post-mortem report, there was partial petrifaction and decomposition in kidney, bladder and intestine wall. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased sustained grievous injury on his vital body organs. Cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to chronic septic with shock. Therefore, it is submitted that learned trial Court has rightly framed charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631 has reiterated as under :—

“21. This Court in t