JUDGMENT R.P. Yadav, J.
1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.12.96 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Session Trial No. 3 of 1996 rejecting the objection of the revisionists and directing the framing of charge under Section 304 I.P.C.
2. It is undisputed that there was some incident of marpeeth between the parties on 28.3.95 which took place at about 5 p.m. On the side of the revisionists one Brijesh Kumar (revisionist) No. 2, sustained injuries, whereas, on the side of prosecution, one Shri Ram Murat Pathak, who died subsequently sustained injuries. Report of the incident was lodged from both the sides at P.S. Mariahu. The injured were also medically examined. Shri Ram Murat Pathak was found having three injuries - one lacerated wound, one abrasion and one contusion. His medical examination was done on 28.3.95 at about 7 p.m. His second medical examination was also done under the orders of the Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Jaunpur on 29.3.95. It is said that the condition of Shri Ram Murat Pathak worsened. He was admitted in the District Hospital on 8.4.95 and died there on 9.4.95. In the post-mortem, which was conducted at 4.30 p.m. on 10.4.95, the cause of death was found to be Septicemic shock as a result of perforation and peritonitis. It appears that a charge sheet under Section 304/34, 323/34, 325/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Sections 304 I.P.C was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Before framing charge, the revisionists filed an objection stating that no offence under Section 304 I.P.C. was made-out and the case was not triable by the Court of Sessions. This objection was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order. He held that there was sufficient ground for framing charge against revisionists under Section 304/34 I.P.C. He, accordingly, fixed a date for framing of the charges under Section 304/34, 323/34, 325/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA. I have also perused the documents referred to by the learned counsel for the parties.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the revisionists that there was no material to show that the death of the deceased was a direct cause of the injuries allegedly inflicted by the revisionists. The death had taken place on account of Septicemic shock and due to perforation and peritonitis. Referring to Dorland's Medical Dictionary, learned counsel submits that perforation means the act of piercing a hole through a part and pritonitis means inflamation of the peritonium and Septicemia means marbid condition due to presence and reproduction of pithogine bacteria in the blood. It is further submitted that from the aforesaid meanings, it is evident that the revisionists have nothing to do with the death of the deceased and the death might have taken place due to ulcer in the abdominal portion or for some other reason including the not proper treatment and the revisionists can not be held liable for the same and the learned Special Judge proceeded to frame the charges despite the fact that there was no evidence that the deceased has died as a consequence of injury allegedly inflicted by the revisionists and that no external injury was found on the abdomen of the deceased.
5. Learned AGA referring to the statement of Dr. Karunakar Dwivedi who was interrogated by the investigating officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has submitted that according to medical evidence, there was no external injury on the abdominal part, yet the existence of internal injury due to violent attack and compression on that part with the blunt end of the lathi can not be ruled out. He further submitted that at the stage of framing of the charge, the learned Judge was not required to make a thorough scanning of the evidence, if he finds that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused have committed the offence which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he has to frame a charge. The learned AGA has read the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, wherein he has mentioned that appreciation of the evidence can be more properly made at the trial after giving an opportunity of evidence to the parties.
6. Under the provisions of Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if after consideration of the material produced before the Court and hearing the prosecution as well as the accused, the Court is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence and the same is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, then, the Court shall frame a charge in writing against the accused. Detailed examination of the evidence or recording of a finding is not required when the learned Court decides to frame the charge. Detailed reasons are required to be recorded only when the Court passes an order of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Looking to the material which was placed before the learned Sessions Judge, it can not be said that there was no ground for proceeding against the accused for framing the charge, In view of the statement of the doctor recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the possibility of the deceased having died on account of some injuries which had caused internal damage in the abdomen can not be ruled out.
7. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the F.I.R. there was no allegation that the revisionists intended to cause his death or they intended to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. This question can also be decided at the trial only after evidence of the parties.
8. If the trial of the revisionists under Section 304 I.P.C. proceeds before the Court of Sessions, revisionists are not likely to be prejudiced anyway. The trial before the Court of Sessions will be more fair, proper and in a cool manner and the revisionists will have full opportunity to test the veracity of the statement of witnesses by cross examination.
9. The order impugned in this revision does not suffer from any illegality. There is no substance in the revision which deserves to be dismissed.
10. The revision is dismissed. The stay order stands vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur who will proceed with the trial and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.