Ganpat Savaner and Others vs Rajendra

P.K. Jaiswal, J.—They are heard. By this petition the applicants are praying for quashment of charges framed against them u/s 307/149 of IPC.

As per prosecution story, on 10.2.2011 the applicants had caused injuries to injured Nirbhay Singh, Ishwar Singh and Jagdish. As per x-ray report of Nirbhay Singh no bony injury was found. Ishwar Singh sustained swelling on his leg while the injury of Jagdish is also simple in nature. The allegation against the present applicants is that they were armed with Farsi, Axe and Lathi and caused injuries to them.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the injuries inflicted by them are not likely to cause death and looking to the statement of the injured and also to the fact that most of the injuries caused on vital part of the body are simple in nature and as per police statement of the injured they had no intention to cause death or to cause such injury which may cause death. With the aforesaid, he prayed for quashment of the impugned order by which charge u/s 307/140 of IPC has been framed against the applicants.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer drew my attention to the MLC reports of the injured persons and their statements and submitted that the injuries which were actually caused to the injured persons by the accused persons with an intention to cause their death. He also submitted that all these questions cannot be decided at this stage unless and until statements of the prosecution witnesses are recorded before the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

There is no material on record except the injuries, to show prima facie that the injuries inflicted to injured was likely in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is no evidence of prima facie any pronounced intention of the accused persons.

After hearing the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the parties and on due consideration of the facts & circumstances of the case and the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the applicants in the case of Rajaram v/s Kadori [1981 (I) MPWN Note No.39] and Vardichand v/s Rameshwar & others [2006 (II) MPWN Note No.13], I am of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration.

Accordingly, the learned trial Court is directed to re-decide the question whether in the present facts & circumstances of the case charge u/s 307/149 of IPC can be made out against the present applicants after hearing them by passing appropriate order. With the aforesaid, this criminal revision is disposed of.