Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munne Khan Gaddi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14985
1 CRR-2307-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 18th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2307 of 2021
MUNNE KHAN GADDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Dudawat, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Jha -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 5.
Shri Faisal Ali Shah - Advocate for respondents No.6, 7 and 9.
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397/401
of Cr.P.C. against impugned order dated 27.8.2021 passed by First
Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in S.T.No.125/2021,
whereby respondents No.2 to 9 have been discharged from charge of offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision in brief are that on 6.3.2021 at
about 1:30 to 2:15 AM, accused/respondents No.2 to 9 armed with farsa,
axe, stick and country made pistol, abused to Bhura in a filthy language,
when complainant Munne Khan came there for intervention, then
respondents No.2 to 9 committed marpeet with Bhura and Munne Khan, due
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14985
2 CRR-2307-2021
to which both of them sustained several injuries and after sometime
respondents Khursheed, Aleem, Gapalua and Badshah entered in the house
of the complainant Munne Khan and also committed marpeet with Adil and
threatened them for life. Accused persons also damaged Maruti Car of
Monis. Complainant Munne Khan lodged an FIR at Police Station Sironj.
Accordingly, offence under Sections 307, 341, 294, 323, 325, 452, 427, 506
r/w Section 34 of IPC has been registered against respondents/accused.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed
against respondents No.2 to 9/accused persons. Respondents No.3, 5 and 6
filed an application under Section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing
both the parties, Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 294, 325 r/w
Section 34 (two counts) and 427 of IPC and discharged the accused persons
from other offences. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid complainant/petitioner
has preferred this criminal revision before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that injured Bhura
sustained four fractures on different parts of body along with other four
injuries including on the right side of the head which is the vital part. Adil
also sustained four injuries and fracture of finger. The case of the prosecution
for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is well supported by medical
evidence available on record but the Trial Court has wrongly discharged
respondents No.2 to 9 from the charges under Section 307 of IPC. At the
time of framing of charge, only prima facie case is to be seen, at this stage
material meticulously applying strict standard of proof is not required and the
Trial Court is not required to hold elaborate enquiry. The final test of guilt is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14985
3 CRR-2307-2021
not to be applied. The Trial Court has passed a detailed order based upon
meticulously marshaling of evidence. On the basis of prima facie evidence
available on record, offence under Section 307 of IPC is to be made out
against respondents No.2 to 9, hence he prays that impugned order relates to
discharge of accused persons from charge under Section 307 of IPC be set
aside and charge under Section 307 of IPC be framed against the accused
persons. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by
the Supreme Court in the cases of Bhawna Bai vs. Ghanshyam & Ors.
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 217 and State (NCR of Delhi) vs. Shiv Charan
Bansal & ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 .
5 . Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State as well as
counsel for respondents No.2 to 9 opposed the prayer and prayed for its
rejection by submitting that the Trial Court on the basis of prima facie
evidence available on record rightly framed the charges and no offence under
Section 307 of IPC is made out against the respondents. The trial Court has
not committed any error, therefore, no interference is required.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also
carefully gone through the charge sheet placed on record along with the
impugned order.
7. From perusal of MLC and x-ray report of victim Bhura, it appears
that he sustained four bony injuries which have been caused by hard and
blunt object, all these injuries are found in the lower part of body even other
victim Adil also sustained a fracture on lower part of his body. Both the
victim did not sustain any bony or fatal injury over the vital part of the body.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14985
4 CRR-2307-2021
There is nothing available on record that any medical expert has opined that
injuries are fatal for life.
8. It is also noteworthy that in the FIR nothing is mentioned that at the
time of incident any gunshot was used. Even no gunshot injury has been
found in the MLC and x-ray report of the victim persons.
9. It is the settled preposition of law that the accused like respondents
No.2 to 9 may be tried and convicted for such offending act which actually
committed and not for that act, which in the available circumstances they
could have committed, but did not commit.
10. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhallu @ Balkishan
Yadav and Another Vs. State of M. P. reported in 2014(1) MPLJ (Cri.) 480
has held that no fracture found below injury, no symptom of brain
hemorrhage found, no other injury was found fatal grave in nature. It cannot
said that applicants intended to kill victim persons or victim persons
sustained fatal injury, therefore, matter of the victim persons does not fall
within the purview of Section 307 of IPC. The same principle has been laid
down by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Roop Singh and
Others Vs. State of M. P. reported in I.L.R. (2012) M.P., 1048 and Ramnath
@ Rammu Gond and Others Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R. (2012)
M.P., 587.
11. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the medical
documents available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the Trial Court has discharged respondents No.2 to 9/accused persons from
charge under Section 307 of IPC as the injuries are not fatal for life in nature
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14985
5 CRR-2307-2021
and opinion of Doctor does not give any impression that the injuries
sustained by victim persons are sufficient in ordinary course to cause death.
Therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that respondents No.2 to 9 intended
to kill the victim persons. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly discharged the
accused persons from the charge under Section 307 of IPC.
12. In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the
Trial Court is just and proper. There is no illegality or perversity in the
impugned order which requires any interference of this Court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction.
13. Accordingly, this criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
