Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 1652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
U. C. Maheshwari, J.
Manish Sahu – Petitioner
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Rev. No. 869 of 2014
Decided On : 16-10-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rajendra Gupta
For the Respondent: S. S. Bisen
At the stage of framing charges, the court considers prima facie evidence and is not required to assess the potential outcome of the trial.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Framing of Charges - Sections 294, 307 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code - [397, 401] - [294, 307, 324/34]
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought revision of the order framing charges against him for offenses under sections 294, 307, and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant's counsel argued that the charges under section 307 were not justified due to lack of evidence from the Victoria Hospital and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court carefully reviewed the case diary and charge-sheet and found that the victim had sustained serious injuries as documented in the MLC report and the bed-head ticket from the Pandey Hospital. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the available evidence is considered, and the veracity of the documents can be assessed during the trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the framing of charges under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code based on the nature of the victim's injuries and the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that at the stage of framing charges, the court considers prima facie circumstances and is not required to assess the potential outcome of the trial. The available evidence, including the MLC report and hospital records, supported the framing of charges under section 307.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the framing of charges against the applicant. The court also allowed the applicant to raise objections and grounds in his defense during the trial.
ORDER :
Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S. S. Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. State counsel submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. Heard.
2. On behalf of the applicant, this revision is preferred under section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 5-3-2014 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.560/2011 framing the charges against him for the offence punishable under sections 294, 307 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Applicant's counsel after taking me through the impugned order along with copy of the charge-sheet argued that initially the MLC report of one of the victims Arvind was prepared in the Government Hospital on dated 1-8-2011, according to which he sustained two incised wounds on his person but initially no definite opinion was given regarding the nature of the injuries and such victim was referred to the Victoria Hospital. The record of the Victoria Hospital in respect of such victim has not been produced along with the charge-sheet. As per further case of the prosecution, after referring the applicant to the Victoria Hospital, he went to some private hospital namely Pandey Hospital for further treatment and along with copy of the charge-sheet, Certificate obtained by the police from such Pandey Hospital is annexed and with respect of the injuries of Arvind, an opinion was obtained and same is placed with the charge-sheet. In continuation, he said that according to such certificate of private hospital, the injuries sustained by the victim Arvind were dangerous to life in nature. In continuation, he said that for giving such opinion, the Doctor has not given description of the alleged injuries, so also other particulars of the same on which it could be examined that the alleged injury was dangerous to life in nature. He also said that in the lack of papers of the Victoria Hospital, it could not be assumed that the applicant was not given any treatment in the Victoria Hospital and in the case of the victim Arvind being referred case from some other Government Hospital for further treatment, certainly some report regarding nature of the injuries was given by the Victoria Hospital but the same has been concealed by the prosecution in spite direction of the trial Court vide order dated 3-3-2012, the same has not been placed by the prosecution. So in the lack of such report of Victoria Hospital, mere on the basis of some Certificate of Pandey Hospital, the main charge under section 307 of Indian Penal Code could not have been framed by the trial Court against the applicant. In continuation, he said that on taking into consideration the averments of the FIR as well as MLC report of Arvind and other victim Shivam Sahu, this was not the case of more than section 324 of Indian Penal Code to frame the charge. With these submissions, he prayed to discharge the applicant from the charge of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by admitting and allowing this revision.
4. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments with the assistance of the case diary, State counsel submits that after preparing the MLC report of the victim Arvind at some hospital at Khamaria, at his request, he was referred from such hospital to Pandey Hospital and not to the Victoria Hospital and that is why the record of the Victoria Hospital was not filed either with the charge-sheet or at subsequent stage in compliance of the order of the trial Court dated 3-3-2012 because no such record was available in the Victoria Hospital. He further said that subsequent to filing the charge-sheet after obtaining the record of the bed-head ticket of victim Arvind from Pandey Hospital, the same was filed before the trial Court on 5-9-2011 along with some application, so in such premises, the trial Court has rightly framed charge of section 307 of Indian Penal Code also besides other charges. In continuation, he said tha
