Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10619
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA, J
Suresh Chandra – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRR 3339/2023
Priyesh Ghosh,Advocate General
At the charge-framing stage, courts must determine if allegations prima facie establish an offence without conducting a mini-trial, ensuring prosecution can proceed unless there's a clear miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 Part-II, 323, 506 Part II, and 34 - Criminal revisions against framing of charges - Charges framed against applicants for involvement in the death of deceased Satyanarayan due to alleged physical assault - Postmortem report indicated death by cardiac arrest, raising questions on the nature of the charges. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Framing of Charges - The court must evaluate if the allegations prima facie establish the offence without conducting a mini-trial - The court should not interfere unless there is a patent miscarriage of justice. (Paras 9-12)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was assaulted by the accused over a political dispute, leading to injuries and subsequent death attributed to cardiac arrest. The trial court framed charges based on the allegations and evidence presented.
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality or impropriety in the trial court's order to frame charges, affirming the necessity of allowing the prosecution to proceed.
Issues: The main issues were whether the charges were justified given the postmortem findings and the standard for framing charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the charge-framing stage, the focus is on whether the allegations, taken as a whole, constitute an offence, and not on the likelihood of conviction.
Result: Revision petitions dismissed.
Applicants have preferred these criminal revisions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.07.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.36/2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch (M.P.), whereby charges under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 149 , 323 read with Section 149, 506 Part II and 34 each of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ' IPC ') have been framed against them. Therefore, all these criminal revisions are being decided by a common order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.08.2022 at about 7:30 AM, deceased Satyanarayan was going to the temple, at that time, accused Suresh and Gunwant came there and started fighting with deceased by saying that “why did you not vote in favour of Dashrath in the Municipal Election?” Upon hearing hue and cry, complainant Vimal and Prahalad came to rescue him and at the same time, accused Premprakash, Rakesh and Dashrath reached on the spot and they all started fighting with the deceased by means of kick and fists, due to which deceased sustained injuries on his chest and all over the body.
Thereafter, the deceased, complainant and Prahalad went to Police Station to report the matter. The accused persons and other co-accused Poonamchand, Parmanand and Premprakash again started fighting with the deceased and complainant in the police station, due to which father of complainant Satyanarayan died. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the applicants / accused persons.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and after hearing both the parties, the trial Court has framed the charges under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 149 , 323 read with Section 149, 506 Part II and 34 of the Indian Penal Code . Being aggrieved by the order of framing charges, applicants have preferred these criminal revisions.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that no injury was found on the body of deceased and during the postmortem, concerned Doctor has not found any internal or external injury, therefore, there is no evidence available on record that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. As per the postmortem, death of deceased Satyanarayan was shown to be result of cardiac arrest, therefore, no offence under Section 304 of IPC is made out against the applicants, but the trial Court while framing the charges has not considered these aspects and committed serious error in framing the aforesaid charges.
Hence, he prays that impugned order be set aside and applicants be discharged from offences under Section 304 of IPC .
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection.
6. Counsel for the complainant also opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that as per the postmortem report, deceased died due to cardiac arrest because of physical assault committed by the applicants and other co-accused persons. The applicants and other co-accused persons have beaten the deceased by kick and fists especially on his chest and different parts of the body. Deceased died on account of injuries inflicted by the accused persons. The impugned order passed by the Court below is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.
7. Counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the record.
8. From perusal of the case diary and other papers, it reveals that daughter of deceased Aarti and wife of deceased categorically stated in their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that applicants along with other co- accused persons have beaten the deceased Satyanarayan by means of kick and fists on his chest and other parts of the body. They have repeatedly committed marpeet in the Police Station with the deceased. Due to the physical assault and mental stress given by the applicants, deceased has been died due to cardiac arrest.
