RAKESH NEGI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners, assailing the order dated 5.6.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla in case No. 16-S/7 of 2012, titled as State of H.P. versus Rakesh Negi and others. In terms of the impugned order, petitioners are charged for having committed offences, punishable under Sections 148, 307, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to face trial. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:

(2.) Police investigated the matter. Injured were got medically examined at Government Hospital. MLCs do reveal that S/Shri Mahidner Singh, Tej Singh and Babu Ram received multiple injuries, which are simple in nature. Challan was presented in the Court for trial and in terms of the impugned order, petitioners stand charged of the offences mentioned herein earlier.

(3.) It is urged by Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Learned Counsel for the accused that the Court below has erred in framing the charge for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as no recovery of either sword or pistol was made by the police during the course of investigation. Further, it is urged that injuries received by the injured S/Shri Mahinder Singh, Tej Singh and Babu Ram are simple in nature and as such it cannot be said that the accused had any intention of causing any death. Further, my specific attention is invited to the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to urge that they are not corroborated by any contemporariness material, i.e. medical evidence placed on record by the police. The correctness and veracity of such statements has to be tested and appreciated at the time of framing of charge. It is also urged that the Court below simply got swayed by the contents of the said statements and thus erroneously framed the charge for an offence, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code., which has seriously prejudiced the accused inasmuch as they are forced to face a Sessions trial.