SUKH LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I do not feel the necessity of recapitulating the facts of this case in detail in view of the fact that the same have been mentioned in the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge (1), Gurgaon. The grouse of the petitioner is that the learned Judge was not well justified in not accepting injury No. 1 on the person of Ram Kumar as not having been caused by sharp -edged weapon particularly when the eye -witnesses and the medico -legal evidence has stated so. He also maintains that for constituting an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. there may not be any injury at all if it can otherwise be made out that had the death been guilty of murder.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at some length I find that so far as the grouse of the learned Counsel for the petitioner relating to the conversion of the offence from Section 307 to Section 325, I.P.C. is concerned, the learned Judge does not appear to be right. It has repeatedly been laid down that at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial Court is not supposed to examine the evidence meticulously and a strong suspicion alone would justify the framing of the charge for a particular offence. If any authority is needed for this proportion, then Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana, 1986(2) Recent CR 609 : 1986(2) C.L.R. 474 can be referred to with advantage.

(3.) AT the same time, the facts and circumstances of the case, to my mind, make out a case under section 326, I.P.C. only and not under section 325, I.P.C., as has been observed by the trial Judge.