DAVID POBRI FERNANDES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revisions can be decided by a common order, since they arise out of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby he refused to discharge the accused of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these revisions are as follows-On 6/7/2007, the complainant Prachin was driving his own Car. He was proceeding from Madgaon to his own house. When he reached near Kushawati bridge, it is alleged that the accused who was also travelling in the car over took the car of the complainant and came across his car. The complainant, therefore, stopped his car. Both the accused i. e. the present petitioner/accused came out of the car and started assaulting the complainant with slaps and fists blows. The complainant fell down. After he fell down, he was given kick blows and fists blows. He fell unconscious. He was removed to the hospital where his statement was recorded. The complainant was examined by the Medical Officer and offence under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against both accused/ petitioners.

(3.) A charge sheet came to be filed against them. While learned Sessions Judge was framing the charge, the accused contended that the case does not fall under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code and they should be discharged of offence under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge refused to discharge the accused under Sec.307 and being aggrieved by that order, these revisions are preferred.