Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaskar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 16 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 136 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
BHASKAR MISHRA S/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA,
AGED 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O
PADMADHAR COLONY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI AJAY BAGADIA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PRAVEEN
KACHOLE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. MIG
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal revision u/S 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by
petitioner/accused Bhaskar Mishra being aggrieved by the order dated
21.10.2021 passed by XXIV Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T.
No.214/2020 whereby the learned trial Court has framed charges against the
petitioner u/S 294, 307 and 506-II of IPC.
2. According to the prosecution story, on 12.08.2010, at around 07:30
PM, when the complainant Sachin Singh was present outside the Infinity Hotel,
Indore, the petitioner came there and started to abuse complainant in filthy
language, when he objected, the petitioner assaulted him on head of the
complainant by means of iron rod. He was taken to hospital and a Dehati
Nalisi was recorded on the same day at 09:20 PM, in the Bhandari Hospital,
Indore.
3. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, had framed
charge against the petitioner as mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that even if the
allegation levelled by the prosecution against the petitioner is considered to be
true, then too no alleged offence u/S 307 of IPC is made out. There are several
omissions and contradictions in the prosecution story. There is no document to
show the nature of the injury which was sustained by the complainant. As per
note made in medical records on 1308.2010, at 05:15 AM, CT Scan of the head
of the complainant was collected by his family member with undertaking that the
same would be returned back, however till date the said CT Scan has not been
submitted on record. In the FIR, it has been mentioned that the complainant
sustained injury on left side of his head whereas the medical report states that
the injury is on right side of his head. It is also submitted that the medical report
at one point records the injury to be "punctured wound" whereas the same has
been referred to have been caused by hard and blunt object which is
contradictory. It is also submitted that primarily the complainant was taken to
Bombay Hospital but no document related to Bombay Hospital, Indore has
been filed. As alleged, the complainant sustained single injury, Therefore, it
cannot be assumed that the petitioner had tried to kill the complainant. It is also
submitted that the learned trial Court without considering the aforementioned
has wrongly framed charge u/S 307 of IPC against the petitioner. Therefore, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. On other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent has
vehemently opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that as per FIR, the petitioner assaulted the complainant on his head by
means of iron rod. The concerning Doctor had examined the iron rod seized
from the petitioner and has opined that the injury sustained by the complainant
could have been caused by the aforementioned iron rod. It is further submitted
that the doctor, who examined the complainant has given opinion that the
complainant is suffering from acute head injury and injury was grievous in
nature and was also dangerous to life. Therefore, there are sufficient materials
available on record to frame charge u/S 307 of IPC against the petitioner. Other
submissions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are matter of
evidence therefore, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. In the case of State of Orissa V Devendranath Padhi [2004
Lawsuit SC 1408] is worth to refer here as under:-
"Further, at the stage of framing of charge, rowing and fishing
inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is
accepted, there will be a mini trial at the stage of framing of
charge that would defeat the object of the court. It is well settled
that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused
cannot be put forth."
8. This Court is conscious of the various decisions laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. In the case of Union of India V Prafull
Kumar Sawal and Anr. [AIR 1979 SC 366], the Apex Court has given
following observation:-
"The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by a
recent decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v.
Ramesh Singh ([1978]1 S.C.R. 287) where Untwalia, J. speaking
for the Court observed as follows:-
"S tro n g suspicion against the accused, if the matter
remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of
proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the
initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the
Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the
Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the
guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage
is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal
cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty
unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose
of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed
with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor
pro poses to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even
if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-
examination or rebut ted by the defence evidence; if any,
cannot show that the accused committed the offence then
there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
trial". proceeding with the trial."
9. In the case of Ravi Kumar Pandey V State of M.P. [2018 lawsuit
MP 2190], this Court has held as under:-
"The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied
finally before finding, the accused guilty or otherwise, is not
exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of charge by the
trial Court. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded
upon material before the trial Court, which leads him to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients
constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge
against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence
is lawful."
10. In this respect, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court regarding
framing of charges is also worth to be considered, in this regard the view of
Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar V Ramesh Chandar [(2022) 9 SCC
460] has opined as under:-
" T h e jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be
exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or
proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior
court, as the case may be. Though the section does not
specifically use the expression 'prevent abuse of process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', the jurisdiction
under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, proprietary
or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very
foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but
ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction
could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-
compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely
erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily. "
11. In the case of State of Rajasthan V Fateh Karan Mehdu [(2020) 3
SCC 998], the Apex Court has held as under:-
"26. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this
Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397
Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well
settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is
concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to
focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is
strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence,
which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge
is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied.
Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court
should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of
committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither
permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of
Criminal Procedure."
12. In the instant case, on perusal of the records, it appears that there is
sufficient material on the record to show that at the time of the incident, the
petitioner assaulted on the head of the complainant by iron rod. As per opinion
of concerning Doctor, the injury sustained by the complainant could have been
caused by the aforementioned rod and the injury was grievous in nature as well
as was dangerous to life. Therefore, it is clear that the learned trial Court has
rightly framed charges against the petitioner. Other submissions as made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner can be decided on merits. It also appears that
the learned trial Court has not committed any error. The impugned order does
not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, impropriety and perversity. Therefore,
no interference is warranted.
13. Accordingly, the revision petition sans merits, hence, is hereby
dismissed and impugned order of the trial Court is affirmed.
14. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the
merit of the case and this order shall not come in the way of learned trial court
in passing the final judgment.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE
Shruti
