- (1.) This revision has been preferred against the order of framing charge dated 17.5.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Mathura in criminal case no. 178A/ix/10 Mangi Lal Vs. Umesh Chand. By this impugned order, accused-revisionist was charged for offences punishable u/s 323 and 392 I.P.C. for alleged causing hurt to son of accused and robbing Rs. 500/- from him.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in this matter, emanated from complaint case, no medico legal examination of victim Umesh was carried out, there is no believable evidence of causing of any injury. He contended that both the charges u/s 323 and 392 I.P.C. relate to use of criminal force and causing hurt to victim, but in absence of any injury report the causing of hurt or injury cannot be proved. Therefore, there is no evidence for framing charge for the aforesaid offences and accused-revisionist should have been discharged. He contended that in these circumstances, order of framing of charge is erroneous and revision should be allowed and accused should be discharged.
(3.) Learned A.G.A. opposed the contentions of revisionist side and pleaded that section 323 relates to causing simple injury. Such injury may be hard or mild and not necessarily such that may be visible at the time of medico legal examination. He also contended that for offence of robbery even attempt to cause hurt is sufficient at the time of committing theft or extortion. Therefore, there is no error in impugned order of framing of charge and the revision should be dismissed.;