Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Kumar Chauhan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 February, 2023
Bench: Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12083 of 2022
Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Chauhan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
By moving this Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer is made to quash order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist, District Jaunpur in Criminal Case No. 168 of 2019, State Versus Ramu) arising out of Crime No.231 of 1997, under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC, Police Station Chandwak, District Jaunpur and judgment and order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge VI/ Special Judge, M.P., M.L.A., District Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2021 (Ramesh Chauhan Versus State of U.P. and others).
The prayer is made that from the perusal of the evidence on record, a case under Sections 307/308 I.P.C. is made out against accused persons/ opposite party no.2 and 3. As per Section 323 Cr.P.C., the Court at any stage shall commit the case to the Court of Session, if it appears to him before signing the judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions.
The attention of the Court is drawn towards the medical report of injured Ramesh Kumar Chauhan (applicant), wherein he has sustained nine contusions and one lacerated wound in different parts of his body. In supplementary medical report, linear fracture was found in the frontal bone of the skull of the injured and this injury was found to be grievous in nature, thus, it is prayed that the case be committed to the Court of Sessions.
Judgment in Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (53) ACC 549, is placed before the Court by the learned counsel for the applicant, wherein the charge-sheet was hurriedly submitted under minor sections of 323, 324 & 504 I.P.C. and X-ray report disclosed linear fracture on partial bone, the case was remanded back to the Court of Sessions for applying its mind to the facts and circumstances in the light of observations made above.
On the basis of this judgment, it is argued that linear fracture was found in the skull of the injured and the charge-sheet was filed before the X-ray was placed on record, hence, the prayer is made to remand back the matter to the trial court, so that it can be committed to the proper court.
If we go through the facts of the present case, previously three accused persons were summoned to face trial under sections 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C. and later on, the charge was framed against two accused persons 9Ramu one of the accused being died) including the present applicant, under Sections 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C. on 10.02.2003. The application under Section 323 Cr.P.C. was moved on 19.08.2019 with the version that accused persons assaulted the injured (applicant) with the intention of causing his death. He suffered grievous injuries. Previously, the case was registered as N.C.R., under Sections 323 & 504 I.P.C. and after medical report, fracture in the skull was found and the injuries were found to be grievous, so Section 325 I.P.C. was added to it and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C. and the charge was also framed under the same sections. As the intention of the accused persons was to cause his death by assaulting with lathi on his head it was within the knowledge of accused persons that the death of a person was possible and from the X-ray report, fracture has been found, so offence under Section 307/308 I.P.C. can be said to be made out against the accused persons, the prayer is made to take cognizance under these sections and to commit the case to the Court of Sessions.
The application is opposed by the learned A.G.A. It is argued by him that as the charge has not been challenged that order has become final, hence, this application is liable to be rejecting.
Admittedly, the cognizance in the present case was taken on 24.04.1998, under Sections 323, 504 and 325 I.P.C and after about seven years on 10.02.2003, charge was framed under the same sections. After more than 16 years of framing the charge, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with the prayer to take cognizance under Section 307/308 I.P.C. and commit the case to the Court of Sessions.
From the perusal of the record, it is found that the case was registered as N.C.R. on 02.07.1997, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. After X-ray report/ supplementary report dated 08.07.1997, when a linear fracture in the skull of the injured was found and that injury was found to be grievous, then the section 325 I.P.C was added to it, cognizance was taken and charge was framed, under Sections 323, 504 & 325 I.P.C. Thus as per facts of this case unlike of the facts of the judgment Rajendra Prasad Singh (supra) the charge-sheet was submitted after filing of supplementary report so the facts of both the cases differ.
In the N.C.R., it is nowhere mentioned that the injured was assaulted with the intention or knowledge of causing death. If we go through the definition of Section 325 I.P.C., a grievous injury is covered by this Section. There was no occasion before the trial court to commit the case after taking cognizance and framing charges under Sections 323, 504 and 325 I.P.C.
The application is, thus, devoid of merit and, hence, rejected.
Order Date :- 20.2.2023
Radhika
