SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. AJAIB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that case FIR No 133 dated 2.7.1987, under Section 307/34 IPC, Police Station Mansa came up for framing a charge before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. By order dated 10-4-1990, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that no offence under Section 307 IPC was disclosed and the offences constituted by the facts and circumstances were under Sections 279, 337/34 IPC. It was, therefore, directed that the case shall be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda to try the same either himself or through any other Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, Sukhdev Singh along with Balwinder Singh was returning from Mansa in his Maruti car on 2-7-1987. At about 10.00 PM they reached near the Courts on Chhoti Mansa Road. A truck came from the opposite direction, went on wrong side and struck against the car causing damage to it. Balwinder Singh came out of the car along with licensed rifle of Sukhdev Singh who was at the wheel. The driver of the truck, however, reversed his vehicle and again banged into the car. Balwinder Singh then fired at the truck with the rifle as by that time it was clear that the persons travelling in the truck were inimical to them. Sukhdev Singh identified Ajaib Singh who is related to him amongst the persons who came out of the truck and escaped in another truck which was coming behind the aforesaid truck. As a result of the above impact, the glasses of the car were broken and Balwinder Singh as Well as Sukhdev Singh sustained injuries on their person. It was further stated in the FIR that Sukhdev Singh's real nephew, that is, sister's son, Baldev Singh was murdered about two years earlier by one Janti. In connection with that Case, Mohinder Singh and Hari Singh had been convicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment and they had come out on bail. Ajaib Singh accused in the present case is related to said Mohinder Singh who was President of the Truck Union, Budhlada, and he used to roam about with Mohinder Singh. The informant, Sukhdev Singh expressed the suspicion that the incident had occurred in pursuance of a conspiracy to kill him by crushing the car under the truck.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all that was required to be seen at the stage of framing a charge by the Courts was whether there was a prima facie case. The court could not under take a meticulous examination of the evidence. It was also contended that for framing a charge, the Court is required to take into consideration, the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the number and nature of injuries suffered were not conclusive in the context of an offence under Section 307 IPC.