Sohan Dubey vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has challenged the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Luvkushnagar, District Chhatarpur in Criminal Case No. 692/2005, whereby an additional charge of the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC was framed against the applicant. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 5.6.2013 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Revision No. 30/2013, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed.

The prosecution''s case, in short is that, on 19.7.2005 at about 11:30 a.m. in the morning, an FIR was lodged by the complainant Raju @ Devkinandan at Police Station Laundi, District Chhatarpur about the quarrel that he and his companion Pappu @ Balram were assaulted by the applicant and other accused persons. In the incident, the complainant Raju @ Devkinandan sustained a fracture in his left radius bone. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court proceeded with the trial and the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 326, 336 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the applicant. Learned Prosecutor moved an application u/s 216 of Cr.P.C. that the charge of the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC shall also be framed against the applicant and thereafter, the trial Court has passed an order dated 30.5.2011 and the charge of the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC was also framed.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there were two victims and one sustained a grievous injury, whereas another sustained a simple injury. Case was tried for the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC for the victim Raju @ Devkinandan. It appears that the weapon of the offence is a "Sabbal" therefore, the trial Court considered it to be a deadly weapon and hence, the charge of the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC was framed. However, no charge for assault caused to the victim Pappu @ Balram was framed and therefore, it was necessary for the trial Court to frame the charge of the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC against the applicant for the victim Pappu @ Balram because the same weapon which was counted as a deadly weapon was used in the crime. Separate charges were required for the separate victims and therefore, no irregularity or illegality was done by the learned J.M.F.C. in framing the charge of the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC against the applicant. At this stage, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted that no such charge can be framed. "Sabbal" is a heavy weapon and therefore prima-facie, it can be considered as a deadly weapon. There is no basis by which the present petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant can be accepted. Hence, no interference can be done in both the impugned orders.

Consequently, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Sohan Dubey is hereby dismissed at motion stage. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as revisionary Court for information.