The applicant challenged the order framing a charge under Section 307/34 IPC, arguing the trial court erred by ignoring the statement of the main injured witness. The High Court, reviewing the evidence of PW1, PW2, and PW4, found the charge was prima facie made out and saw no infirmity in the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24484 of 2019
Applicant :- Vimal Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Avadhesh Narain Tiwari has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by Additional District and Session Judge (F.T.C.) Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 243 of 2007 (State vs. Vimal Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 290 of 2006 under section 308/34, 307/34 IPC of Police Station Sirsa Kalar, District Jalaun at Orai pending before the Court of Additional District Judge/FTC, Jalaun at Orai and also a prayer is made to stay the the effect and operation of the impugned order till the disposal of this application.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the trial court had allowed the application of prosecution no.338 Kha erroneously and has ordered that charge be framed against the accused applicant Vimal Kumar under section 307 read with 34 IPC and directed the accused to appear on 25.5.2019 for framing the charge. It is further argued that earlier this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 6926 of 2008 had set aside the order of framing of charge under section 307/34 against the accused applicant vide order dated 3.4.2008, however, it was left open to the court concerned to alter or add the additional charge if the evidence was found to be sufficient in course of trial. It is argued that the main injured witness Madusudan has made statement that the injuries were caused to him by the opposite party no. 2 but ignoring the said statement, the trial court has gone on to direct that the charge be framed against the applicant under section 307 read with 34 IPC on the basis of statement given by other witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW4 which is against the provisions of law.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that the injured Madhusudan had turned hostile and he had not supported the prosecution case and an application for his discharge was also moved. Therefore, the trial court has correctly passed the impugned order.
I have gone through the impugned order and find that the trial court has recorded evidence. From the side of the prosecution PW1, PW2 and PW4 have supported the prosecution version. PW1 and PW2 have stated in their statement that at the instance of accused Sanjay Kumar @ Raju, Vimal Kumar had made assault by axe at the head of Madhusudan by which fracture was caused on his head, which was later on operated also. The said injured has remained hospitalized for 72 days and has become
mentally incapacitated. Therefore, it is held by the trial court on the basis of the statement of Madhusudan that charge under section 307/34 IPC is prima-facie made out against the applicant and accordingly has passed the impugned order. I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order.
This application is deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.7.2019 AU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order framing a charge under Section 307/34 IPC should be allowed.
Whether the trial court committed an infirmity in framing the charge against the applicant while ignoring the statement of the main injured witness.
Vimal Kumar
State Of U.P.
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
