MADAN LAL Vs. RANG LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MADAN Lal complainant and his brother Ram Sarup were in cultivating possession of land owned by one Khiali Ram. At about 10.00 P.M. on May 25, 1992, when he was irrigating the land from the tubewell, the accused Rang Lal, Ami Lal and Mange Ram alongwith 3-4 more persons came to the tubewell and threatened Madan Lal with dire consequences and after having done so, set fire to the cotton sticks lying in the tubewell kotha, causing damage to the electricity cable as well. When Madan Lal and Ram Sarup attempted to intervene, Rang Lal fired gun shots at Ram Sarup and Ami Lal at Madan Lal with an intention to kill them, though the shots missed their targets. The accused then left the spot saying that they would eliminate the family members of Gurmesh Bishnoi, who was an associate of the complainant party. It appears that the incident had taken place on account of a civil suit pending with regard to the tubewell in question. Madan Lal and Ram Sarup brought the circumstances of the case to the notice of the police, but no action having been taken, a complaint for offences punishable under Sections 307/435/436/506/34 IPC was filed on August 8, 1992 (Annexure P-1) after recording preliminary evidence of about 42 witnesses, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwani Camp at Hisar vide his order dated 7.12.1992 (Annexure P-2) summoned the accused to stand trial only for offences punishable under Sections 435/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This order of the Magistrate was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in revision.

(2.) THE present petition has been filed by the complainant that the accused should also have been summoned for the prosecution under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the facts as made out in the preliminary evidence and that the Judicial Magistrate had, in the impugned order (Annexure P-2) virtually decided the matter as a case on merits in a trial.

(3.) IT will be seen that the complaint had been filed under Sections 307/435/436/506/34 IPC. The complainant examined as many as 42 witnesses. The Magistrate, however, observed that no offence under Sections 307/436 IPC had been made out by observing thus :-