Shubham Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4347 MP

                             1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                  ON THE 20 th OF MARCH, 2023
              CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2099 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
1.    SHUBHAM JAIN S/O MANISH JAIN, AGED ABOUT
      23 YEARS, R/O VILL ANANDPUR PS ANANDPUR
      VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    MAHENDRA JAIN S/O SHRI SURENDRA JAIN,
      AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILL. ANANDPUR PS
      ANANDPUR, VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    MAYANKJAIN S/O SHRI MANISH JAIN, AGED
      ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE ANANDPUR PS
      ANANDPUR, VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    ANTIM JAIN @ REENU JAIN S/O SHRI SURENDRA
      JAIN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O VILL.
      ANANDPUR PS ANANDPUR, VIDISHA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

5.    AJAY JAIN S/O SHRI ASHISH JAIN, AGED ABOUT
      19 YEARS, R/O VILL. ANANDPUR PS ANANDPUR,
      VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    ABHISHEK JAIN S/O SHRI ASHISH JAIN, AGED
      ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O VILL. ANANDPUR PS
      ANANDPUR, VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                   .....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SAMEER KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      POLICE STATION ANANDPUR DISTRICT VIDISHA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    DILEEP JAIN S/O SHRI KEVALCHAND JAIN R/O
      VAPCHA ROAD, ANANDPUR VIDISHA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)
                                    2
                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NITIN GOYAL - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
(BY SHRI RAJ KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)

      Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

This revision has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lateri District Vidisha (M.P.), in Session Trial No.10/2022 affirming the judgment dated 06.12.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lateri, district Vidisha in Session Trial No.10/2022 convicting the petitioners under Sections 294, 323, 324, 325, 326

r/w Sections 34 and 506 part (II) of IPC. Petitioners have preferred this revision on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that injured Sandhya got grievous injury. Despite this fact, learned trial Court framed under Section 326 and 34 of IPC for adjudication of deciding the revision.

Brief facts are that on 14.07.2020 at 5 pm, complainant Dileep Jain lodged an FIR at police station Anandpur District Vidisha against the petitioners that on 14.07.2020 at 4.45 pm when the complainants were unloading cement, a dispute arose between him and the petitioners in which they did assaulted him by means of lathi and iron rod and hurled abuses. At that time, his family members wife Seema, daughter-in-law Sandhya, brother Deepak who intervened were also assaulted with the aforesaid articles. On his report, Crime No. 93/2020 for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 325, 326 r/w Section 34, 506 part (II) of IPC was registered against the applicants. Injured persons were sent for medical examination. As per medical report, injured Sandhya sustained one lacerated wound and one contusion. Doctor advised her for X-ray of skull and left forearm and as per Dr. Narendra Baghel, her X-ray report is NAD.

Thereafter, she got herself treated in Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal, from there investigating agency tried to get her X-ray report and MLC. Despite their efforts, they could not get the aforesaid, but doctor opined that she sustained grievous injury.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that he made efforts to bring on record the MLC conducted at Hamidiya Hospital as well as X-ray report, but could not be produced. Afterwards on 31.01.2023, prosecution informed the Court that they were unable to bring the aforesaid documents. Beside this, Sections 326 and 34 of IPC were framed. It is further submitted that report of Hamidiya Hospital is not corroborated by any medical evidence. Besides this, there is another X-ray report in which no grievous injury was found.

Learned counsel for the complainant made submission that the doctor of the Hamidiya Hospital opined grievous injuries having sustained by injured Sandhya.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record, it is evident that though doctor opined the injury sustained to be grievous in nature, however, the prosecution remained failed to bring the report on record and in absence whereof, offence under Section 326 of IPC ought not to have been framed.

In view of above, revision is allowed and the petitioners are discharged from the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.

With the aforesaid, the revision stands disposed of.

                                              (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)

                                                         JUDGE
   Adnan

ADNAN    Digitally signed by ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI
         DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
         PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT



HUSAIN
         OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,

2.5.4.20=43f3ff8f444225f9f0d9c30497105abb 80e91238ac53cf96a7b005e256158275, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=922E3DC382E0127257CE0DCC

ANSARI 4E29CD410E0BF39FAB6AA6DCB81675BB2AF 2DFCF, cn=ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Date: 2023.03.23 20:02:51 +05'30'