JANGIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five petitioners have, been charged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda for offences under sections 308, 506, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that a reference to documents and the statements of reference to the documents and the statements of the witnesses submitted along with report of the police under section 173 Cr. P.C prima facie make out such a case against them. Mr. Battas, their learned counsel contends that there is no injury on the record which could possibly bring the case under section 308 Indian Penal Code and, therefore the case in hand is not triable by Sessions Court. The only injury to which a reference has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent, i.e. the State and the complainant to sustain the charge under section 308 Indian Penal Code, is on the head of Om Parkash P.W. which reads as follows: 1175 cm, x 0.5 cm. Lacerated wound on the scalp starting from the hair going backward and laterally 1.5 cm to left of midline. The wound is bone deep and bleeds on touching. Advised X-ray skull. A.P. Lateral view. Later it has admittedly been declared to be simple by the Doctor who conducted medical examination on the injured.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length in the light of the records with them, I find that it is difficult to sustain the order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge charging the petitioners under section 308 Indian Penal Code. As has already been pointed out above, the injury to which a reference has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent, is simple injury though on the head, merely because an injury has been found on the head, it cannot be assumed that the accused had the intention or knowledge to cause such an injury that had the death been caused, they would have been guilty of murder. In the instant case, the other facts and circumstances also indicate that the accused-petitioners had no such intention or knowledge while causing the injuries that in case the injured had died they would have been guilty of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is not in dispute that though this injury was caused with Gandasa yet from its reverse side. It clearly rules out the intention or knowledge sought to be imputed to the accused who gave the injury. Besides this, these five petitioners gave only three injuries to two persons and all of them are found to be simple. It is also the case of the prosecution that while leaving the injured, the accused threatened them by saying that in case you reported the matter to the police, you would be killed. This again clearly indicates that they had no intention to kill or cause such injuries, which could lead to that result while they were inflicting the injuries to the P.Ws. To me, it appears to be a simple case of hurt. As a matter of fact, the learned trial Court while framing charges against the petitioners has repeatedly been saying that the common object of the unlawful assembly wag to cause hurt to those injured P.Ws.

(3.) In the light of above discussion, I allow this petition and while setting aside the order dated 14/10/1986 and the resultant charges framed in pursuance thereof, send the case back to the trial Court to re-examine the whole case in the light of the above observations and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the trial Court on February 16, 1987. Petition allowed