HARNEK SINGH ALIAS MEKA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28.9.1990 case F.I.R. No. 65 under Section 307/348 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Harnek Singh and others on the statement of Surjit Singh son of Pritam Singh. According to Surjit Singh on the day of the occurrence at about 6 A.M. he alongwith his father Pritam Singh had gone to his field to bring cotton sticks. At about 7.30 A.M. Harnek Singh armed with 'Kirpan', Mithu armed with 'Kulhari', Jit Singh and Mukhtiar Singh armed with gandasas emerged from the cotton field and Harnek Singh shouted that Pritam Singh should be taught a lesson for filing proceedings for partition of the land. Harnek Singh gave a Kirpan blow on the left leg of Pritam Singh. On the exhortation of Jit Singh Mithu gave 'Kulhari' blow from reverse side on the right wrist of Pritam Singh. Jit Singh and Mukhtiar Singh also gave injuries to Pritam Singh by the reverse side of their weapons.

(2.) AFTER investigation of the case challan was presented in the court and the case was committed for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, the Additional Sessions Judge found that a prima facie case under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused and they were charged for this offence. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda whereby the accused were charge for the above mentioned offence, Harnek Singh and other accused have filed this Criminal Revision Petition for setting aside the same.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that except for one injury, the rest of the injuries found on the person of the injured, were caused with blunt weapons. All the injuries were simple but for one injury which resulted in the fracture of tibia and fibula. The injuries were not caused on any vital part of the body and as such opinion of Medical Officer, Mansa dated 24.9.1990 that injuries No. 1 to 8 collectively were dangerous to life, had no substance and could not be considered for framing a charge under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further contended that even an injury dangerous to life was to fall under Clause 8 of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused came within the purview of Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Tej Ram v. State of Punjab, 1978 C.L.R. 76; Jai Narain Mishra and others v. State of Bihar, 1972 C.A.R 19 (S.C.) and Sundershan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 379. I find that these authorities are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in all those cases nature of the offence committed was considered after completion of the trial when all the witnesses had been examined. For framing a charge the court to see whether there is sufficient material to support the bringing of a charge for a particular offence without critically examining the same. All that requires at the stage of framing the charge is to see whether a prima facie case regarding the commission of certain offence is made out. The question whether that charge will eventually stand proved or not can be determined after evidence is recorded in the case. In the instant case the injured had suffered 8 injuries When the Doctor examined the injured, he found those injuries bleeding profusely. The injured was under shock and his general condition was also not good. All the accused were alleged to be armed with deadly weapons and there was an exhortation to the effect that Pritam Singh be taught a lesson for seeking partition of the land. In a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code intention of the accused is also to be seen and it not necessary that there should be bodily injury capable of causing death. So considering the material before it, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that a prima facie case under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused. Whether that charge is sustainable or not will be seen after the completion of the trial. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.