STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. TARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions-Criminal Revision Nos. 978 and 1138 of 1986 are directed against the same order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated May 21, 1986, whereby during the course of trial of the respondents of charge under Sections 307/326/324 read with 149, Indian Penal Code, he came to the conclusion in the light of the statement of PW1, i.e, Dr. Harsh Kumar Mahajan, who had examined the injured i.e., Sucha Singh 307, IPC could not be sustained against them. In view of this conclusion of his, he while dropping the charge under Section 307, IPC. transferred the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, for trial. The State as well as the complainant respectively, impugn this order as already indicated, through these two petitions.

(2.) The solitary argument raised by Mr. P.S. Sidhu learned Counsel for the State is that after the framing of the charge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to alter the same and transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In submitting so, the learned Counsel appears to be oblivious of the provisions of Section 216, Cr.P.C. which lays down that any Court may alter or add to any charge of any time before the judgment is pronounced. I thus see no merit in this submission of the learned Counsel.

(3.) So, far as the other petition (Crl. Rev. 1138 of 1986) on behalf of the complainant is concerned, all that has been said by Mr. P.S. Hundal, his learned Counsel, is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in dropping the charge under Section 307 IPC solely on the basis of the statement of PW1, i.e. Dr. Harsh Kumar Mahajan and he should have, as a matter of fact, looked into the other evidence, such as the bed head ticket. X-ray report, etc. I again see no merit in this submission of the learned Counsel. This witness has expressed his opinion that "possibility of injury No. 1 on the person of Sucha Singh being dangerous to life could not be ruled out", in the light of the evidence to which a reference is made by the learned Counsel, i.e, the X-ray report and examination of the injured by him. It is not disputed before me that in the absence of categorical opinion by the doctor that the injury on the basis of which the charge under Section 307 IPC, was framed against the accused, was dangerous to life, the charge cannot be sustained.