Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2021
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH: INDORE
S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar
CRIMINAL REV. No.2642/2021
Mohammed Raja & Ors.
vs.
State of M.P.
********
Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sameer Verma, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
********
CRIMINAL REV. No.2479/2021
Aslam
vs.
State of M.P.
********
Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sameer Verma, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
********
CRIMINAL REV. No.2480/2021
Wasim
vs.
State of M.P.
********
Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sameer Verma, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
********
CRIMINAL REV. No.2481/2021
Imran
vs.
State of M.P.
********
Shri Ashutosh Surana,, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sameer Verma, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
********
ORDER
(21.12.2021)
This order shall also govern the disposal of Cri.Rev.Nos.2479/2021,
2480/2021 and 2481/2021, as these revisions are arising out of the same
crime No.79/2021, registered at police station Nagda and arising out of the
order dated 3.8.2021, passed in S.T.No.26/2021 by ASJ, Nagda, whereby the
learned Judge has framed the charges against the petitioners for the offence
punishable under Sections 307/149, 323/149 (4 counts), 147, 148, 294 and
506 (II) of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.2.2021, the FIR was lodged
by complainant Abas Ali, at around 10.28 PM in the night, alleging that at
around 8.00 PM in the same night, he and other persons of his community
were having a meeting with regard to the illegal possession of Madarsa by
the petitioners. At that time, the petitioners came armed with lathi, sword,
knifes, Darata and belt and abused them and started assaulting them and ran
away from the spot with the threat of further dire consequences.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been
falsely implicated in the alleged offence and so far as Section 307 of IPC is
concerned, it was totally unwarranted and ought not to have been framed,
looking to the injuries suffered by the injured persons as Munna and Abas
Ali have received head injury and other persons had received simple injuries
only. Counsel has submitted that so far as Munna is concerned, his injury is
lacerated over occipital region approximately 2 x 0.5 cm and Munna in his
statement has attributed the said injury to Aslam who was armed with stick
only. The other injured Abas Ali also suffered a head injury in the form of
laceration on the occipital region admeasuring .5 x 1 cm. Counsel has
submitted that a counter case has also been registered against the
complainant party at crime No.80/2021. It is further submitted that initially
a case was registered under Sections 321, 147, 148, 149, 294 and 506 of
IPC only and injuries suffered by Abas Ali was also said to be simple in
nature. Abas Ali was also admitted in civil hospital, Ujjain, but he was also
discharged within two days time and had suffered no bony injury and along
with charge sheet also no such medical documents of Abas Ali have been
placed on record to suggest that he suffered any grievous injury, as there is
no query report. Thus it is submitted that the report appears to be concocted.
4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the prayer
to allow the revisions and submits that no case for interference is made out,
as the doctor has clearly opined that at the time of treatment Abas Ali
condition was deteriorating and hence, he was referred to district hospital,
Ujjain and in the query report it has been mentioned that in case of lack of
proper medical attention, the injuries could have been fatal.
5. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ananta Kathod Pawar & Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1997) 11 SCC 564 and submitted that the accused persons
would liable for their individual acts if specific evidence led by the
prosecution in that regard where the fight is said to be sudden free fight
between two groups of members.
6. On due consideration of the submissions and perusal of the record, as
also the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananta
Kathod Pawar (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the
arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners would be well
suited in their defence at the time of evidence is led by the parties and thus
at this juncture, it is difficult to hold that the intention of the petitioners was
not of committing the murder. It may be that initially the FIR was lodged
under minor sections, but that in itself would not be a reason to quash the
charge under Section 307 of IPC. So far as the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Ananta Kathod Pawar (supra) is concerned, it
has been so rendered after both the parties have led the evidence in support
of their claim and thus while appreciating the evidence the Apex Court has
held as under :-
"5...............Once the trial Court found that there was a
sudden and free fight between the two groups in which
members of both the groups sustained injuries, the trial court
should have held that there was no scope for convicting
members of one of those groups under Section 147 or 148 of
IPC and for that matter for substantive offences with the aid
of Section 149 of IPC."
7. Thus, it also affirms the finding of this Court that it is not the proper
stage to come to a final conclusion regarding the culpability of the accused
persons under a particular Section.
8. In view of the same, the petitions being devoid of merit and stand
dismissed.
9. However, the liberty to the petitioners is granted to raise all the grounds
available to them during the course of trial at appropriate stage.
(Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge
Digitally signed by SHAILESH
SS/- MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Date: 2021.12.21 14:46:53 +05'30'
