ASHOK AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the action of the trial Court in framing a charge against the petitioners under Sec. 302 IPC at the fag end of the trial, the petitioners have impugned the same by way of present revision petition. FIR No. 151 dated 11.8.2005 was registered against the petitioners under Ss. 307/34 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Ganaur. On completion of investigation, the prosecution presented a challan against the petitioners. Having framed a charge under the afore -mentioned offences against the petitioners, the recording of the prosecution evidence commenced. Prosecution closed its evidence on 17.1.2006 and the case was fixed for defence evidence.

(2.) On 18.3.2006, however, the trial Court observed that a perusal of the FIR reveals that Sandeep was allegedly fired upon and as such, the trial was in progress for an offence under Sec. 307 IPC. Father of the injured -complainant Sandeep appeared in the witness box as PW1 to say that Sandeep had expired on 12.9.2005 i.e. after about a month of the day of occurrence. The trial Court, however, noticed that from the evidence on the file, it was not clear if the death of Sandeep could be related to the injuries that were caused to him by the petitioners and further that it was not clear whether this was a case of a natural death. The Court justifiably observed that in case Sandeep had expired on account of injuries sustained by him in the alleged occurrence, then the petitioners were liable to be charged for an offence under Sec. 302 IPC. The Court accordingly directed SHO concerned to appear before the Court and give a report about the cause of death of Sandeep, as may have revealed from the post mortem examination. On 20.4.2006, State moved an application for altering the charge against the petitioner from Sec. 307 IPC to Sec. 302 IPC. It is mentioned in this application that victim Sandeep Rana had suffered a gun shot injury at the hands of the petitioners. He had accordingly been admitted to various hospitals for treatment. It is further mentioned that during the course of treatment, complainant Sandeep Rana succumbed to his injuries on 17.9.2005. As per the opinion of Senior Consultant, Dr.J.C.Vig, the complainant had died due to multi organs failure on account of several complications such as septicaemia, malaria, dengue fever, hepatitis. All this has followed the gun shot injury suffered by the victim. It is urged that this opinion would clearly show that the complainant had died because of the complications arising out of a gun shot injury and, thus, relatable to the action of the petitioners. Accordingly a prayer was made to alter the charge framed against the petitioners from Sec. 307 to Sec. 302 IPC. It is in this background that the trial Court vide its order dated 23.5.2006 allowed this application and held that petitioner, Ashok, is required to be charge -sheeted under Sec. 302 IPC and petitioner Pawan @ Pona is liable for the said offence with the aid of Sec. 34 IPC. Aggrieved against this order, the present revision is filed.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.