Gangaram Tyagi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4593 MP

                                  01                       Cr.R.1127.2020

               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                     Criminal Revision No.1127.2020
                         Gangaram Tyagi & Ors.
                                   vs.
                          State of M.P. & Ors.

Gwalior, Dated: 24/8/2021
        Shri Rishikesh Bohare, learned counsel for the petitioners.

        Shri Sangam Jain, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent

No.1-State.

Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav, learned counsel for respondent No.2-

complainant.

The petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Revision

under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC, challenging the order

dated 21.1.2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Bhind(M.P.) in

S.T.No.25/2020; whereby, the charges under Sections 294, 326/34, 506

(Part-2) of the IPC, have been framed against the petitioners.

2. The facts leading to filing of the instant revision are that on

14.9.2019 at about 6 AM, when the complainant was going towards his

hotel, at that time accused persons came on the spot and abused him.

When the complainant tried to stop them, petitioner No.1-Gangaram

assaulted him with farsa and caused injury on the back side of the head

petitioner No.2-Manish assaulted him with axe and caused injury on left

side of the head of the victim and petitioners No.3 and 4, namely, Deepu

and Vasudev assaulted the complainant with lathi and caused injury on

his hands and thigh. When Ramu Tyagi and Pintu Tyagi came to rescue

him, then the accused persons abused the complainant and fled away by

threatening the complainant to kill him if he lodge the report of the 02 Cr.R.1127.2020

alleged incident.

3. On the basis of report, FIR has been registered against the accused

persons for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 326/34, 506

(Part-2) of the IPC at Crime No.188/2019 by Police Station Raun,

District Bhind. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed

against the petitioners before the concerned Court. The trial Court

framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable

under Sections 294, 326/34, 506 (Part-2) of the IPC.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of framing of charges, the

petitioners have filed the instant revision on the ground that the framing

of charge against the petitioners is contrary to law and not sustainable in

the eyes of law. It is further contended that no any injury was caused by

means of hard and sharp object and the doctor, who conducted the MLC,

has opined that no injury as well as no incised wound was found on the

left hand of the victim. It is further submitted that the Medical Board

was constituted after three days of the MLC wherein Medical Board has

opined that incised wound as well as fracture was found on the left hand

of the victim. As the medical Board had given it's opinion after three

days of the incident and the doctor who conducted the MLC had not

opined that any incised wound was found on the left hand of the victim,

therefore, opinion made by the Board is unreliable. As per prosecution

story, the incised wound, which was found on the head of the victim, has

not resulted any fracture. In support of his contention, counsel for the

petitioners has placed reliance on the cases of State of Haryana vs.

Bhajanlal,[AIR 1992 SC 604], Ramsingh vs. State of M.P.[1992 (2) 03 Cr.R.1127.2020

MPJR 459] and Bhagia & Ors. vs State of M.P.,[2004(3) MPHT 254],

Hence, prayed to allow this revision by setting aside the impugned order

of framing charge.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State as

well as learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned

order and submitted that looking to the injuries caused to the victim, the

charges were rightly framed against the petitioners, therefore, prayed for

dismissal of the revision.

6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused

the documents available on record.

7. In Soma Chakravarti V. State, [( 2007) 5 SCC 403], it is held

that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of material on

record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the

prosecution has to be accepted as true. Before framing a charge, the

Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and

must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was

possible. Whether the accused committed the offence or not, can only be

decided in the trial. The charge may although be directed to frame when

there exists the strong suspicion but it is also trite that the Court must

come to a prima facie finding that there exists some material therefor.

8. In Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) &

Anr., [2008 (2) SCC 561], it is held that at the stage of framing of

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, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients 04 Cr.R.1127.2020

constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the Court is not expected

to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs

to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the

offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused

has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on

material which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the

existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged

would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the

commission of that offence."

9. The trial court has analysed the material for the purpose of

finding out whether or not the prima facie case against the accused has

been made out. The truthfulness of the statement or circumstances or

documents of the prosecution cannot be questioned at this stage by the

defence. The material on record discloses the grave suspicion. On the

basis of the material on record the Court could form an opinion that the

accused might have committed an offence. It is established at the time of

framing of charges that there is no scope to appreciate the entire

evidence in details. There is permanent dis-figuration on the face of the

complainant due to the grievous hurt committed by the accused.

Therefore, the trial Court has examined the case and rightly found

prima-facie case against the accused and has not erred in passing the

impugned order.

10. In the present case, the doctor who conducted the MLC has not

opined that there was any incised wound on the left hand of the victim

but the Medical Board has opined that fracture was found on the left 05 Cr.R.1127.2020

hand of the victim along-with the incised wound. This fact has to be

analyzed by the trial Court with the help of evidence adduced before it.

While framing of charges, the trial Court is only required to see whether

prima facie case is made out against the accused persons or not?

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in

view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no perversity or illegality in the

order impugned passed by the Court below warranting any interference

by this Court at this stage.

11. Consequently, the present criminal revision is hereby dismissed

being devoid of merits.

12. Before parting with the matter, the Trial Court is hereby

specifically directed that facts which brought before this Court with

regard to different view in medical evidence given by the doctor first

who conducted the MLC and the Board who constituted after three days

of the MLC, should also be analyzed in its judgment on the basis of

evidence produced before the Court and if any default is found by any

of the aforesaid experts then the trial Court will be at liberty to take

appropriate recourse of law.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge pwn* Pawan Kumar 2021.08.25 15:32:42 +05'30'