Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMKESH MAURYA versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramkesh Maurya v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 3268 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3755 (2 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No. 48)

Criminal Misc. Application  No.   3268  of 2007

***

Ramkesh Maurya,  son of Nilai Maurya,

Resident of Village and Post Suitha

Kalan, Police Station Sarpataha,

District Jaunpur ..... Accused -Applicant.

Vs.

1. State of U.P.

2. Basant Parjapati son of Ram Achal

Prajapati, Resident of Village and Post Suitha Kalan,

Police Station Sarpataha,

District Jaunpur.  . ..... Complainant -Opp.parties.

****

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. In these proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. , one out of the three accused in the case complains that  the Trial Judge ( Addl. Sessions Judge) Fast Track Court-IV, Jaunpur has framed a  charge under Sections 308/34, 504,506 and Section 323/34 I.P.C. , while according to the doctor, the injuries sustained by the two injured ladies are simple in nature and, therefore, a charge under Section 308 I.P.C. was  unjustified  and charge should have been framed under Section 323 I.P.C.  and the Trial should have taken place before the Magistrate.

2. I have heard Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.K. Maurya, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

3. This argument  was raised before  the Trial Judge, which he dispelled by his order and maintained that it was an appropriate case for framing a charge under Section 308 I.P.C. because the injury was on the head , which is a vital part and could have been fatal though  fortunately it did not prove to be so.

4. This controversy could have been easily reconciled if the doctor had advised an X-ray and the X-ray was thereafter performed, from which it could be ascertained whether there is any fracture of the skull  bone or not?  Since there is no X-ray report, it may be presumed that the doctor did not consider it necessary to advise X-ray because he found the injury to be quite simple.

5. Since the injury has been described by the doctor as simple and since we have no sufficient reason to assume otherwise, the charge should have been  under Section 323 I.P.C. It would not be appropriate to frame a charge under Section 308 I.P.C. as a precautionary  measure  because  that would deprive the accused of one tier of appeal. In case  the charge is under Section 308 I.P.C., it would be tried by the  court of Sessions and appeal will lie to the High Court while if the charge is under Section 323 I.P.C. ,  the case  be tried by the Magistrate and appeal will  lie to the Sessions Court.

6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant's objection is justified and the charge should not be under Section 308 I.P.C. and the case should go back to the Magistrate for Trial.

7. Petition allowed.  Ordered accordingly.

2.3.2007

3268 /2007 n.u.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.