21.11.2012
Petitioner by Shri D.S. Kushwah, Advocate. Respondent/State by Smt. Sangeeta Pachauri, P.P. Heard on admission.
Petitioners have filed this revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 27.9.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhind, M.P. in S.T.No.218/12 whereby charges for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 307, 307/34 and 506-B of IPC have been framed against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that challan has been filed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 336, 506-B/34 of IPC but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind has committed the case to the Court of Sessions for framing of the charges for trial and learned Sessions Court has framed the charges for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC. There is no evidence regarding firing by the petitioners.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is allegation of firing against one of the accused by country made pistol of 315 bore and petitioners were accompanying the accused Jeetu @ Neetu @ Nitendra who has fired on the complainant. The petitioners were also involved in abusing and threatening the complainant.
1
therefore, learned trial Court is justified in framing the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC. Therefore, considering the fact that one of the accused has fired at the time of incident, it cannot be said that offences punishable under Section 336 of IPC only is made out. Under Section 221 of Cr.P.C., where it is a doubtful of the offence has been committed, the Court is empowered to frame the charges for any of the such offence. Therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any error in framing charges against the petitioners, the impugned order needs no interference in revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed.
(Anil Sharma) Judge
mani/-
2
Comments