JAGE RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AAG for the State of Haryana and learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and perused the record.

(2.) THIS criminal revision is directed against order dated 18.5.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani rejecting the application of the revisionist-complainant Satpal praying for framing a charge under section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate distinguished both the authorities on facts and noticed that there was no opinion that the injuries were dangerous to life and at the state of framing the charge all that is required to see is whether the prima facie case regarding the commission of a certain offence is made out. It may be pointed out that in spite of the fact that the learned Magistrate himself observed regarding the scope of evaluation of the material on record at the stage of framing the charge, substantially departed from the settled law. The settled law is that if the material on record prima facie connects the accused with a particular offence, then the Court has not to see the adequacy of the material on record to warrant a conviction of the accused of that offence and the same is to be considered after the conclusion of the trial. That being so, the learned Magistrate committed an error in law by holding that no offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code was prima facie made out so as to frame a charge thereunder against the accused. The learned Magistrate could not at that stage hold as to the nature of the injuries inflicted on the complainant- injured without entering into the merits of the case at the trial.