JUDGMENT :

1. Mr. Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Surbhi Nigam, learned Deputy G.A. for respondent/State. The petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 16-6-2016, whereby the charges have been framed against them by 1st ASJ, Betul in S.T. No.46/2016 for the offenses under sections 294, 223 (5 counts), 506-B and 326 of Indian Penal Code, have filed this revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Filtering the unnecessary details, facts requisite for the disposal of this petition are that, the complainant-Sheshrao Alokar lodged a report against the petitioners/accused persons that on 2-11-2015 while constructing boundary wall the accused persons opposed the same and were trying to demolish the pillars. When the complainant and his associates asked not to do so, the accused persons abused the complainant by filthy language and assaulted by bricks and ‘lathi’ (wooden stick). They also threatened them of their life. On this report initially crime was registered under sections 294, 223, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code but, after receiving the MLC and X-ray report offence under section 325 of Indian Penal Code has been added.

3. Subsequently, before filing the charge-sheet, and after making query, offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code has also been registered, charge-sheet has been filed. The learned ASJ, Betul framed charges under sections 294, 223 (5 counts), 506-B and 326 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

4. The petitioners assailed the same on the ground that offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code is not made out as the injuries caused to Anuradha is not dangerous to human life. No doubt she was admitted in the Hospital for 11 days and she left the Hospital on 7-11-2015 and without any inquiry she went to Nagpur for treatment. The Court below has failed to consider that in the query report of Nagpur, no opinion has been given which would show that the weapon used is a weapon mentioned in the section 324 of Indian Penal Code nor the injury is dangerous to life.

5. Per contra, learned Deputy G.A. for respondent/State opposed the above submissions and contented that the order passed by the learned ASJ, Betul is proper and needs no interference.

6. On perusal of the records available, it seems that Sheshrao, Atul, Akash and Deepak have received simple injuries by hard and blunt weapon. But Anuradha, wife of Sheshrao has received simple injuries except injury on Nasal Bone, and on her right side of Scalp. The injury on the Nasal Bone, after the X-ray report, was found to be displaced fracture. Whereas the injury on the right temporal parietal area of the scalp, which does not show any intracranial injury. The injury on the nasal bone having fracture is of “grievous in nature” and other injuries are simple in nature, and all these injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.

7. As per the prosecution story, the injury on nasal bone was caused by ‘lathi’ (wooden stick). No doubt the learned trial Court has framed charge under section 326 of Indian Penal Code, apart from the other offenses. But challenge has been made only with regard to the offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the discussion is restricted to that extent only.

8. The essential ingredients of offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code are as under :

“(i) that the accused caused grievous hurt to another person; (ii) that such hurt was voluntarily caused; (iii) that such grievous hurt (as contemplated under section 320 of Indian Penal Code) was caused by any means provided under section 324 of Indian Penal Code.”

9. The weapon or instrument used for the commission of offence is very important. Section 324 of Indian Penal Code reads as follow;

“324. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death