Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vipin vs State Of M.P on 4 August, 2025
SLP(Crl.) No.11127/2025
ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11127/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-04-2025
in MCRC No. 16476/2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Gwalior]
VIPIN & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P.& ANR. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION and I.R.
IA No. 177543/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 04-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Niraj Sharma, AOR
Ms. Mahima Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. In para 12 of the impugned order the High Court has observed
thus:-
“12. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial court
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.08.06
17:01:45 IST
1
Reason:
SLP(Crl.) No.11127/2025dated 10/5/2022 is hereby set aside. The charge framed
under Section 325 of IPC is modified and in its place
it is directed that the trial Court shall alter the
charge to Section 326 of IPC. As already pointed out;
the nature of injury for offence under Sections 325 and
326 of IPC is the same, therefore no doctor would be
required to be recalled in view of the altered charge.
However, if the trial Court thinks it appropriate to
recall certain witnesses to find out whether any deadly
weapon was used for causing injury to complainant or
not, then it can recall the said witnesses. However, it
is once again clarified that no doctor shall be
recalled.”
2. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 216 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “the CrPC”)
thought fit to alter the charge by adding Section 326 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). According to
the High Court, prima-facie a case of grievous hurt in the
form of fracture of right nasal bone could be said to have
been made out.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that there is no injury which falls within the ambit of
Section 320 of the IPC.
4. We may only say that although the charge under Section 326 of
the IPC has been added, yet it’s a subject matter of trial
ultimately what type of offence could be said to have been
made out by the prosecution. Just because charge of Section
326 of the IPC has been added that does not mean that
2
SLP(Crl.) No.11127/2025
ultimately even if the no case of grievous hurt is made out,
the accused would be convicted for the offence of grievous
hurt. Ultimately, the trial court shall decide what type of
offence is disclosed on the basis of oral as well as
documentary evidence on record.
5. It shall be open for the petitioner herein to prefer an
application under Section 311 of the CrPC for the purpose of
recalling the doctor, if need be, since there has been an
addition of charge under Section 326 of the IPC.
6. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASST.REG-CUM-P.S. COURT MASTER (NSH)
3
[ad_1]
Source link