GOPAL KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The informant was going to his home on 6/8/2021. When he reached near the shop of Ashok Kumar, he saw the petitioner/accused moving with a gun. The accused was challenging the people to touch the fence and threatening them to shoot, in case, any person dared to touch the fence. Surjeet Singh etc. were standing near the fence. When Surjeet Singh reached near the fence, Gopal Krishan shot at him. Surjeet Singh suffered an injury on his chest and fell. The wife of Gopal Krishan was moving with a bag, which was containing the cartridges. Gopal Krishan took the cartridge from his wife and again started threatening the people. The people ran away. Gopal Krishan and his wife remained on the spot. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR. Subsequently, Surjeet Singh succumbed to his injuries and Sec. 302 of IPC was added. The police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC after the completion of the investigation.

(2.) The Learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-Gopal Krishan for the commission of offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act. The learned Trial Court also framed charges against the petitioner-Asha Rani for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

(3.) Being aggrieved from the order framing the charge, the present revision has been filed asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in framing the charge. No reasons were assigned while framing charges. The learned Trial Court is to sift the evidence to find out whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. The petitioner-Gopal Krishan fired in exercise of his right of private defence against the crowd, which was damaging the property of the petitioner. The first fire was shot in the air to warn the hostile crowd. There was a grave and sudden provocation as per the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the charge should not have been framed against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC.