KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the statement of one Onkar Singh a case FIR No. 93 dated 10-10-1991 was registered at Police Station Sadar Faridkot against the present petitioners, under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code. As per case of the prosecution on 9th October, 1991 Tehsildar Faridkot had gone to village Pakhi Khurd for demarcating the village periphery. At about 9.45 a.m. the village Panchayat had gathered at the spot. Gurdial Singh father of the complainant and Karnail Singh and his three sons who are the accused were also present there.No decision could be made regarding the periphery of the village and the Tehsildar went back. An altercation took place between Gurdial Singh and the accused. The accused went towards their tubewell and returned armed with 'dang' and 'gandassas'. Malkait singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of Gurdial Singh. Nachhatar Singh also gave gandasa blow on his head and similarly Hakam Singh hit Gurdial Singh on his head with his gandasa. The occurrence was witnessed by Onkar singh, Phula Singh and Ajaib Singh. Medico Legal examination of Gurdial Singh was conducted at which three injuries were found on his person. The doctor advised X-ray. After completion of the investigation a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.

(2.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot heard the parties on the question of charge and came to the conclusion that prima facie an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against Malkiat Singh, Hakam Singh and Nachhatar Singh and under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Karnail Singh. A charge was framed against them and since the offence was triable by Judicial Magistrate, the case was sent back to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot for disposal according to law. Aggrieved by this order dated 2-4-1992 of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot Karnail Singh and others filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that charge-sheet framed against them be quashed.

(3.) THE complaint party also filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge charging the accused-petitioner under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code may be quashed and the could be directed to try the accused for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as they had caused gandasa blows on the head of Gurdial Singh. It was pleaded that veracity and effect of the evidence was not to be judged at the stage of framing of the charge and at the stage of framing of charge the court has to just see the allegations against the accused. Th question what value was to be attached to the opinion of the Doctor was to be examined at the final decision of the case and not at the stage of framing of the charge. The injuries were caused to Gurdial Singh with gandasas on his head and when the police wanted to record his statement he was found unconscious. Subsequently the injured was removed to Ludhiana where he was admitted in a hospital.