Nirpat Singh vs State of M.P.

M.K. Mudgal, J.—With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage. Petitioner has filed this criminal revision u/s 397 and 401 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 22.1.2013 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge Guna in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2013, whereby, the charges have been framed against the petitioner u/s 353, 333 /34, 332 /34 and 307 /34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 26 of the Forest Act.

An F.I.R. Crime No. 126 of 2012 u/s 307, 353 and 332 /34 of IPC was registered at PS Sirsi Range Bamouri District Guna. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class where from the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and at present, the Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2013 is pending before the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Guna. When the case was fixed for arguments on charge, it was submitted by petitioner that the offence u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code was not made out against the petitioner as there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to kill the injured. The medical evidence does not indicate any grievous injury on the vital parts of body of any injured and since there was no evidence to this effect, prima facie, case u/s 307 of IPC was not made out against the petitioner. But the submission was not accepted and trial court has framed charge u/s 307 IPC along with the other offences as stated earlier against petitioner and co-accused. Hence, for issuing proper direction to the trial court to quash the charge u/s 307 IPC, this revision has been filed.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State on the other hand has supported the impugned order and submitted that the order of trial court is proper and requires no interference.

Heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the documents available on record.

During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the legality and propriety of the charge u/s 307 of the IPC only. So the question arises for consideration whether the offence u/s 307 of the IPC is prima facie made out against the petitioner or not. The petitioner''s counsel submits that the alleged tractor which was involved in the said incident was not being driven by him i.e. Nirpat. According to statements of the witnesses the accused Nirpat remained on the field when the said incident took place. Therefore, the charge u/s 307 of the IPC labeled by the learned trial Court against the petitioner-accused should be quashed.

The learned Public Prosecutor has conceded during course of argument that there was no sufficient evidence on record against the accused Nirpat for framing the charge u/s 307 of IPC.

This Court has considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Apex Court in case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendr Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962, held as under:-

It seems well settled that as the Sections 227-228, stage, i.e., stage of framing the charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

For framing the charge u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code, the Court has to consider the basic ingredients of said offence. A bare perusal of Section 307 of IPC clearly reveals that when an act has been done with an intention or knowledge, under such circumstances, that if by such act, he caused death of a person, he would be guilty of murder, then, he may be punished for ten years and if hurt is caused by such act, then punishment may extend to life imprisonment. Illustration (c) makes it abundantly clear that for the purpose of Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that an injury be caused to a person. Therefore, the nature of the injury is absolutely immaterial. What is to be looked into by the Court for the purpose of Section 307 IPC, is the circumstances in which the occurrence took place, weapons used by the accused persons and the place of injury on the body of the injured. Therefore, the nature of the injury may be one of the pointer with regard to the intention or knowledge, but it cannot be the sole criteria. What is essential to note is that even if no injury were caused, even then an offence u/s 307 may still be committed. Further, what is punishable u/s 307 is the intention or the knowledge, with which the act is being done.

On perusal of the statements of the forest personnel (forest guards) Bhaskar Singh, Kanak Singh, Ratan Singh, Abdul Salam Siddiqui, Mahesh Puri, Chhatar Singh, Brijmohan and Ramgopal recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the facts of the case in brief are that on 21.11.2012 at about 7.45 AM forest guard Bhaskar Singh and Salam arrived at Akodia''s forest while patrolling on their beet, there they found that the accused Nirpat was getting the forest field ploughed by a tractor while doing so, he (Nirpat) was stopped and told by the forest guards not to plough the forest land. On account of this deterrence, there arose a dispute among them following which, the forest guards called their colleagues, Ratan Singh, Kanak Singh, Chhattar Singh and Mahesh and they demarcated the land and it was found that the land was being ploughed by the accused Nirpat belonged to forest. Thereafter the said forest personnel were taking the tractor along with driver to Bamouri Range, while they were going to the range, the driver in the middle of the course turned the direction of the tractor towards village Akodia. At the same time, the forest guard Bhaskar Singh tried to turn the steering towards the range, in the meantime, the driver accelerated the tractor and forcibly pushed Kanak Singh and Chhatar Singh. When Ratan Singh tried to stop the driver, he fell down in the field and the driver over ran the tractor on him following which, Chhatar Singh, Kanak Singh and Ratan Singh sustained injury. When the said incident took place, the accused Nirpat Singh was reported to be on the field.

Thus, it is obvious from the above statements that the accused Nirpat had no role in causing the injury to any of the staff members. Apart from, he was not present in the tractor when the said incident took place. Under these circumstances, there is no prima facie evidence on record so as to frame the charge u/s 307 of the IPC against the accused Nirpat Singh.

Therefore, allowing the petition, setting aside the charge only u/s 307 of IPC, the petitioner Nirapt is hereby discharged u/s 307 of the IPC.

With the aforesaid modification, this petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned.