Azam v. State

1. By way of present petition, challenge has been made to order dated 11.7.2013 by which charge has been framed under Section 308 IPG against the petitioner in SC No.8/2013 pending before learned District and Sessions Judge (South), Saket, New Delhi.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the complainant and the petitioner/accused are young persons. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged incident happened inthe heat ofthe moment Crl.R.P.481/2013 Page 1of[3] 2013:DHC:8476 and injuries on the victim are simple and as such at the most the charge under Section 323 IPC is made out against the petitioner and not under Section 308 IPC as has been framed by the learned trial court.

3. The impugned order shows that the learned trial court after considering the entire material on record including MLC of the victim, statement ofthe injured and the other witnesses has observed as under:in the case at hand the evidence shows the accused had waylaid the first informant and the other injured person to create an opportunity for assault. He was not only armed with an iron rod in advance presumably with preparation to commit the assault but also virtually dared the first informant in the context of his demand of reflind of money. It is not an essential ingredient ofthe offence of section 308 IPC for hurt to be actually caused. In the present case hurt has been caused and that too on a vital part ofthe body."

4. As per the allegations, both the injured persons have sustained injuries on their vital part ofthe body i.e., head. The alleged weapon ofoffence used is an iron rod. At the time of incident one of the victims, namely, Arshad Ali was a student of 12^^ class and the other victim, namely, Mohd. Aziz were coming on a motor cycle. As per allegations, the petitioner was already present at the spot with the weapon of offence. It is alleged that the petitioner had stopped the motor cycle and had hit Mohd. Aziz with iron rod on his head and he fell down. He again started beating him with iron rod as a result ofwhich he became unconscious. The charge has been framed after CRL.REV.P. 481/2013 Page[2] of 3 considering the material on record. No illegality is seen in the inipugned order which calls for interference ofthis court. The revision petition is dismissed. CRL.M.A. No.12847/2013 fstav^ In view of the order on the main revision petition, no orders are required on the present application. The same stands disposed ofaccordingly.

AUGUST 30,2013 kks VEENABIRBAL,J