Devkee Devi Thakur vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and others

This revision application takes exception to the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No.223/2015, whereby the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ''IPC'') has been framed against the applicant.

The facts leading to the present case are that, the applicant is alleged to have inflicted injury on the neck of the complainant Rinku Jatt by using a knife in furtherance to previous enmity. Thus, incident was reported to the Police Station- Cantt, Guna and an FIR bearing Crime No.448/2015 was registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.

The chargesheet was filed and the trial court while passing the impugned order framed charge for punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. This order is under challenge in the present revision.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the injury was not fatal and the complainant Rinku Jatt was discharged from the hospital within one week, further the allegation of the complainant is not supported by the medical report. There is no opinion of the doctor that, the injury was life threatening and as per the complainant himself, he has previous enmity with the applicant. Therefore, the revision application deserves to be allowed.

To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State submits that the impugned order is based on the material placed on record with the chargesheet . Thus, no interference is called for.

Having considered the rival submissions and perused the documents placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that, framing of charge for offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is improper for the reasons, firstly that the injury though is on the vital part of the body but the same was not fatal and if the applicant had intention to commit murder then despite having opportunity to inflict repeated injuries, he did not do so. Secondly, the story is narrated by the complainant that, gripping the knife for preventing from further injury is not supported by medical report which reveals only abrasion on hand which was caused by hard and blunt object, whereas the applicant was possessing only knife when he arrived at the place of incidence. The submission of applicant that, there is no opinion of the doctor revealing the nature of injury as to whether the same was life threatening or not has some force in it.

In view of the foregoing reasons, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC are not satisfied, however, the ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 323 of the IPC on two counts and 324 of the IPC on one count are prima facie made out. Accordingly, the revision application is allowed in part and the order impugned is modified to the extent that the trial Court shall try the case under Sections 323 of the IPC on two counts and 324 of the IPC on one count in accordance with law. Copy of this order be sent for information and necessary action.