AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arvind Singh Chandel, J
The revision is listed for hearing on admission. With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
The revision is directed against the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.97 of 2017,
whereby the Learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed charges against the Applicant/accused for offence punishable under Sections 308 and 323
of the Indian Penal Code.
Complainant Trilochan Singh lodged First Information Report on 12.4.2017 at about 9:30 p.m. alleging that on the same day at about 8:45 p.m., while
returning from 27 Kholi Chowk, Bilaspur, the Applicant/accused came to the place of occurrence in his car bearing registration No.CG 10 AC 1150
and with an intent to commit culpable homicide, dashed the motorcycle of the Complainant and thereafter started giving assaults with a baseball bat
and caused injuries to him. The police registered a case and on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Applicant for offence
punishable under Sections 308 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide the impugned order dated 25.10.2017, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge
has framed charges against the Applicant for offence punishable under Sections 308 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this revision.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant argued that without considering the facts of the case and the statement of the Complainant and
ignoring the fact that the Complainant had received simple injury and it was a simple case of a road accident, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge
has framed the charges against the Applicant. It is further argued that initially the police had registered First Information Report for offence
punishable under Sections 279 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code, but, later on, charge-sheet was filed for offence punishable under Sections 308 and
323 of the Indian Penal Code. From the evidence collected by the prosecution, no case under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is made out
against the Applicant.
Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order.
I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care.
The First Information Report was lodged by Complainant Trilochan Singh on 12.4.2017 at about 9:30 p.m. alleging that on the same day at about
8:45 p.m., when he reached at the chowk, the Applicant was sitting nearby in his car bearing registration No.CG 10 AC 1150. Having seen him, the
Applicant came towards him driving his car rashly and dashed his motorcycle. He fell down and his motorcycle stuck in the bumper of the car of the
Applicant. The Applicant with an intent to assault him chased him and pressed his motorcycle in a wall. When he tried to get up, the Applicant took
out a baseball stick from his car and assaulted him with the said stick. It is also mentioned in the FIR that there was a previous enmity between them
and earlier also the Applicant had threatened him of his life. In his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Complainant
Trilochan Singh has made the same statement. Ravindra Sharma and Kamal Jabbal have also supported the statement of Complainant in their
statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Taking into consideration the above evidence, I find that a prima facie case under Sections 308 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is made out
against the Applicant/accused. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly framed the charges.
In the result, the revision is dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed.