Bachhu @ Kishan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1212 MP

                                                    1
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                          ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                       CRIMINAL REVISION No. 971 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.   BACHHU @ KISHAN LAL S/O LATE DHANIRAM
                               CHOURASIYA,   AGED   ABOUT   67  YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: KIRANA SHOP VILLAGE GANDHI
                               GRAM BUDHAGAR, P.S. GOSALPUR, DISTRICT
                               JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.   PINTU @ VINAY S/O SHRI KISHAN LAL
                               CHOURASIYA,   AGED   ABOUT   32  YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: PVT. SERVICE R/O VILLAGE
                               GANDHI GRAM BUDHANAGAR, P.S. GOSALPUR,
                               DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.   RAJESH @ MOTA S/O SHRI HARIPRASAD
                               CHOURASIYA,   AGED   ABOUT   44   YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: KIRANA SHOP R/O VILLAGE
                               GANDHI GRAM BUDHANAGAR, P.S. GOSALPUR,
                               DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.   SUDEEP @ LANGAD S/O SHRI HARIPRASAD
                               CHOURASIYA,   AGED   ABOUT   41   YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: KIRANA SHOP R/O VILLAGE
                               GANDHI GRAM BUDHANAGAR, P.S. GOSALPUR,
                               DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.   GAJJU @ SURENDRA S/O SHRI HARIPRASAD
                               CHOURASIYA,   AGED   ABOUT   50   YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: KIRANA SHOP R/O VILLAGE
                               GANDHI GRAM BUDHANAGAR, P.S. GOSALPUR,
                               DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.   HONEY @ PRINCE @ GUNNI S/O SHRI HARISH
                               KUMAR CHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: PVT. SERVICE R/O VILLAGE
                               GANDHI GRAM BUDHANAGAR, P.S. GOSALPUR,
                               DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          7.   DEEPU @ DEEPAK S/O SHRI GOVIND PRASAD
                               CHOURASIYA,  AGED   ABOUT   38  YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: KIRANA SHOP R/O VILLAGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 1/23/2023
1:44:09 PM
                                                       2
                                GANDHI GRAM BUDHANAGAR, P.S. GOSALPUR,
                                DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI VIKAS JYOTISHI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                          GOSALPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE )

                                This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2022 passed by IIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur in ST No.99/2020, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition. whereby the learned Court below has framed the charges against the petitioners under Section 294, 148, 324/149, 307/149, 506-II of IPC.

As per the prosecution story, on 11.06.2019 at about 7.00 PM, Rajdeep Singh, Vijay Yadav, Gaurav Baghel were sitting and talking in Ashish Hotel. There Bacchu Chourasiya came armed with sabbal, Pintu Chourasiya armed with pistol, Rajesh Chourasiya armed with baka and Sudeep Chourasiya armed with axe and Honey @ Gunni Chourasiya armed with Sabbal and demanded loan amount and abused the complainant and caused injuries on his head and shoulder and caused injury to Rajdeep and Vijay Yadav on their head. Hence, the police has registered the crime against the applicants and after taking statements of the witnesses and following due process of law, filed the charge- sheet against the petitioners. The learned Court below, thereafter, framed the charges as stated above.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 1/23/2023 1:44:09 PM

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no injury on the vital part has been caused by the petitioners and there is no intention to to kill the injured. The injuries caused by the petitioners are simple in nature and no grievous injury was found in the medical report. Hence, the charges framed by the learned Court below under Section 307 of IPC are without any appreciation of the facts and material available on record and hardly the case of the present petitioners would travel only under the provisions of Section 324 of IPC, hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order. Learned counsel for applicant has relied on judgment of Delhi High Court dated 30th August, 2018 passed in case of Bhanwar Singh & others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi.

O n the other hand, counsel for the State has submitted that there is sufficient grounds to framed the charges as above looking to the injuries caused by the petitioners, hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief from this Court.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. On perusal of the documents submitted along with criminal revision, it is clear that petitioners were armed with dangerous weapons and caused injury on head of Rajdeep and Vijay Yadav, vital part of the body with intention to kill them.

In the case of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana Vs. Sukhbir Singh

reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the intention or knowledge must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the case of Ansaruddin Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR (1997) 2 Crimes 157 (MP), this Court has held that it is not necessary that injury, capable of causing death, should have been inflicted. What is material to attract, the

Signature Not Verified provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. is the guilty intention or knowledge with which Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 1/23/2023 1:44:09 PM

the all was done, irrespective of its result. The intention and knowledge are the matters of inference from totality of circumstances and cannot be measured merely from the results. In the case of Vasant Virthu Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 2 Crimes 539 it has been held that the question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307, is a question of fact and not one of law. It would all depend on the facts of a given case. The important thing to be borne in mind in determining the question whether an offence under Section 307, is made out is the intention and not the injury even if simple or minor.

Fro m the facts and circumstances available on record prima facie it cannot be said that the petitioners had no knowledge or intention that from their act injured might die. Therefore, the learned Court below has not erred in framing the charges against the petitioners, hence, at this stage, no case for interference is made out.

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE tarun

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 1/23/2023 1:44:09 PM