YOGRAJ SHARDA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision has been filed impugning the order dated 17.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby application under Section 216 read with Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for deleting the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and for sending the case to Illaqa Magistrate for trial, has been dismissed. In brief, facts relevant for disposal of the petition are to the- effect that FIR No.193 dated 01.11.2011, under Sections 307/323/324/506 read with Section 34 IPC has been registered against the petitioners at Police Station City Khanna, at the behest of one Anil Dutt Phali. The root cause of the occurrence is that wife of petitioner no.1 and sister of petitioner no.3 moved application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain information with regard to rent and house-tax of govt. shops, the person who were running Sweet Corner, Samrala Road, Khanna, allotment of the same etc. In the FIR, it is mentioned that petitioner no.1, his son-Prince, Maninder Sharma along with two unidentified persons were standing and caught hold of complainant from both arms and petitioner-Yograj Sharda was having some iron type punch in his hand and inflicted blow with an intention to kill the complainant. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that as per the MLR, six injuries have been inflicted on the person of complainant, out of which injuries no.1, 4 and 5 are merely swelling while injury no.6 is complaint of pain and no external injury corresponding to the said injuries was mentioned in the MLR. However, injury no.2 is an incised wound of size 0.6 x 0.3 cm while injury no.3 is an abrasion. Upon X-ray examination of injuries no3, 4 and 5, the same were declared simple. Therefore, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out on the basis of medical evidence. However, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners under Section 307 IPC under the influence of complainant. It is also pleaded that statements of Ambica Pandit and Iqbal Singh, prosecution witnesses, reveal that injuries inflicted on the person of complainant do not fall within the purview of Section 307 IPC. It is also pleaded that offence under Section 307 IPC is made out only, if such act is done with intention or knowledge that it can cause death of the concerned victim. Section 307 IPC cannot be read in isolation and has to be read and interpreted as per the provisions of Section 320 IPC. It is prayed that no offence is made out against the petitioners under Section 307 IPC and the impugned order may be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that alleged injuries inflicted on the person of complainant and Chamkaur Singh have been declared to be simple in the medical evidence and are on the non-vital parts of the body, as such charge framed under Section 307 IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the impugned order needs to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon Pritam Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, 2010 3 RCR(Cri) 395, Dilbag Singh and others vs. The State of H.P., 2006 1 RCR(Cri) 552 and Jamil Ahmed vs. Hanif and others, 1995 3 RCR(Cri) 50. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that charge has rightly been framed by the trial Court as the injuries inflicted with a punch like weapon on the person of complainant are on the vital parts of body and the same was done with intention to kill him. Due to the impact of injury, the complainant fell down on the ground and he was saved by the employees of the contractors. Learned counsel further contended that intention can only be inferred from the evidence which is ultimately to be led before the trial Court. It cannot be appreciated at this stage. The trial Court is competent to frame charge merely on suspicion. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioners had earlier filed CRR- 1233-2013 which was disposed of on 10.04.2013 relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy under Section 216 Cr.P.C. read with Section 228 Cr.P.C. by moving an appropriate application before the Sessions Court. In the said order, it was observed that learned Sessions Court would pass a speaking order if such an application was moved. Learned counsel further contended that in the said order, it was also observed that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to re-appropriate the strength of the evidence of the prosecution as reflected from the material in report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.