HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dated 27.3.91 of the learned ASJ by which he framed charges under Section 304 Part 2 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code against respondents 2 and 3, namely, Veena and Bala. The petitioner complainant feels aggrieved and prays that actually the charge should have been framed against these ladies under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. The revision Is admitted.

(3.) The case of the prosecution Is bcsed on the statement of the deceas' pd Smt. Sonita given by her under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 11.9.89. According to this statement on the date of the occurrence i.e. the same day she was returning to her house at about 7.30 P.M. after answering the call of nature. The accused persons, namely, Veena and Bala met her on the way. Veena told her that she was defaming her and she will teach her a lesson and saying this she started beating her while Bala accused held her by hands and when she fell, Veena is alleged to have continued to give blows on her chest and stomach. She raised noise. On hearing noise one lady Santosh came and rescued her. She was then taken to Hindu Rao Hospital where she was given treatment. However, finding that it was a case not fit for admission she was discharged at about 2.30 A.M. the same night. It then appears that she was still not feeling well. Therefore, the was taken to Parshant Nursing Home. The doctors of that Nursing Home advised that she was in dire need of admission and therefore, she may be taken back to Hindu Rao Hospital. She was then taken to the Hospital where unfortunately she was declared brought dead She was subjected to postmortem examination. In the post mortem examination no external injuries were found. In the opinion of the doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage consequent to injury in the abdomen.