Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28812
1 CRR-710-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 2 nd OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 710 of 2025
ARUN KUMAR SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Arun Kumar Singh - Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Akshay Namdeo - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard this matter
finally at motion stage.
This revision petition has been filed by the applicant under Section
438/442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved with
the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,
Mauganj, District-Rewa (M.P.) vide S.T. No.96 of 2024.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the case before
the trial Court was that on 27.05.2024 at about 10:30 am, Ramsushil Shukla
after returning from his field sat in the house of Rambhuvan Dwivedi on that
due to previous enmity, Harinath Dwivedi, Sangamlal Dwivedi, Yogesh
Dwivedi, Diwakar Dwivedi, started abusing Ramsushil Shukla and started
assaulting him by hands and fists. After hearing the cry of quarrel, Arun
Shukla, Satendra Shukla, Anil Shukla, Mayank Shukla reached on spot. All
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28812
2 CRR-710-2025
the four assailants also assaulted these persons with hands, fists and danda.
Ramsushil Shukla suffered injury in head. Arun Shukla also suffered injuries
in head, right hand and both legs. Satendra Shukla suffered injury in head.
Anil Shukla also suffered injuries in head and legs and Mayank Shukla also
suffered injury in head. F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station-Mauganj,
District-Rewa (M.P.) on that basis Crime No.299 of 2024 for the offence
punishable under Sections 294, 323 read with 34 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before
the Magistrate and on commitment was submitted before the trial Court for
the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 307 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The accused persons filed an application for discharge on
15.01.2025 before the trial Court submitting that no case under Section 307
of the Indian Penal Code is made out. On that, the report was submitted
along with the opinion of District Public Prosecution Officer, Rewa on that
basis, the trial Court considered the documents of Prosecution Officer, Rewa,
discharged the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307
of the Indian Penal Code and framed the charges in place of Section 307 to
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, this revision petition has been
filed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the
medical evidence, it is clear that Arun Kumar Shukla suffered grievous
injury in his head. A fracture was also caused in his forearm.
5. He has further submitted that there was an extradural hemorrhage in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28812
3 CRR-710-2025
the head of Arun Kumar and liner non-depressed fracture of occipital bone
was found, fracture of mastoid part of right temporal bone was also seen,
subarachnoid hemorrhage seen in the right frontal bone and on that basis
submitted that Arun Shukla had suffered grievous injury on his head and in
radius bone and the trial Court has considered the document that was not part
of the charge-sheet. At the stage of charge, no other document or the defence
of accused persons should be considered and by that, the trial Court has
committed illegality taking into consideration the defence of the accused
persons at that stage, particularly, the document which was not part of the
charge-sheet.
6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the charge-sheet
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been filed and it is the
discretion of the trial Court to frame the charge under the relevant sections.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant to substantiate his arguments has
drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, Criminal Appeal No.2504
of 2023 dated 09.10.2023 in which, the Apex Court has held as under:
"8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking
cognizance the accused has no right to produce any
material and call upon the court to examine the same.
No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused
to file any material or document at the stage of framing
of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind
to the facts of the case as may be necessary to
determine whether a case has been made out by the
prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet
material only.
11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into
at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged.
The expression "the record of the case" used in Section
227 Cr.P.C. is to be understood as the documents and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28812
4 CRR-710-2025
articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code
does not give any right to the accused to produce any
document at the stage of framing of the charge. The
submission of the accused is to be confined to the
material produced by the investigating agency."
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Shoyeb Raja Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.,
Criminal Appeal No.3327 of 2024 dated 25.09.2024 in which, it has held as
under:-
"13. It is well recognized that intention may not always
be proved by hard evidence and instead may be required
to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the
case. If the doctor who conducted the examination
posits the possibility of throttling, then under what
circumstances, without rigorous cross-examination,
could it be concluded that the injuries sustained were
simple? That apart, even if the injuries were taken as
simple, the extent of the injuries, as observed supra in
Hari Mohan Mondal, are not relevant, if the intent is
present. We are not in agreement with the learned
Courts below that intent was absent, as the Doctor's
report itself records throttling to be reasonably
suspected."
9. In the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Mohan Mandal Vs.
State of Jharkhand (2004) 12 SCC 220 in paragraph no.11, it has held that it
is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an
intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential
that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The
Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the
intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section
307 and it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28812
5 CRR-710-2025
307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the
nature of a simple hurt and submitted that the trial Court has committed
illegality.
10. I have gone through the F.I.R.
11. From the perusal of F.I.R, it is clear that the quarrel started when
Ramsushil Shukla went to the house of Rambhuvan Dwivedi and the
accused persons namely Harinath Dwivedi, Sangamlal Dwivedi, Yogesh
Dwivedi, Diwakar Dwivedi started abusing Ramsushil Shukla and also
started assaulting him by hands, fists and danda and on cry by Ramsushil
Shukla, Arun Shukla, Satendra Shukla, Anil Shukla and Mayank Shukla
reached there to save Ramsushil Shukla and after that, the accused
persons/non-applicant nos.2 to 5 started assaulting these four persons with
hands, fists and danda one after another. Nowhere, in the F.I.R, it has been
written that the accused persons with an intention to commit murder or
assaulted after preparation, were already present on the spot.
12. It is not the case of the prosecution that the assault was pre-
planned. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the accused
persons/non-applicant nos.2 to 5 were armed with any deadly weapon or fire-
arm and as it is clear that when Ramsushil Shukla was beaten by the
assailants, then the other injured persons reached there to save Ramsushil
Shukla and on that, they were assaulted by the accused persons. Nowhere, in
the statements of Mayank Shukla, Ramsushil Shukla, Rambhuvan Dwivedi,
Ramkali Dwivedi, Anil Shukla, Satendra Shukla have stated that the accused
persons were having intention to murder them and if the grievous injury is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28812
6 CRR-710-2025
caused to Arun Shukla, the accused persons/non-applicant nos.2 to 5 were
liable for that under relevant provisions of law i.e. Section 325 of the Indian
Penal Code.
13. Though, the trial Court has committed illegality while considering
the documents submitted by the defence but the reasons may be different, the
result is same, hence, only on the procedural mistake, framing of charge
could not be said to be illegal as in substance, the case against the accused
persons/non-applicant nos.2 to 5 is not made out for the trial of offence
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. This Court is well aware with the provision and in this case, from
the charge-sheet, it does not appear that the accused persons/non-applicant
nos.2 to 5 were having an intention to murder the applicant, hence, aforesaid
judgments cited by the counsel for the applicant are not helpful to the
applicant.
15. Hence, the revision petitions stands dismissed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
julie
