LAWS(J&K)-2010-1-3

SHAKEEL AHMAD Vs. FIDA HUSSAIN

Decided On January 01, 2010
SHAKEEL AHMAD Appellant
V/S
FIDA HUSSAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision has been filed against order dated 17.10.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, whereby the respondents have been directed to be tried under Sections 323/325/326/341/34 RPC, holding that no offence under Section 307 RPC is made out against them. The Challan, accordingly, has been directed to be transferred to the Court of Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ramban, for disposal of the case under law.

(2.) Mr. Sethi, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is an employee of the Forest Department, while on his way to attend his official duty on 11th of July, 2006, was attacked by the respondents with iron rods and lathies. This was with a criminal intention to kill the petitioner as there was some old enmity between the parties with regard to a piece of land. It is stated that on account of the said attack the petitioner sustained multiple injuries and remained hospitalized for about three weeks and underwent a surgery also. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the medical certificate issued by the Registrar, Surgical Unit-6, SMHS Hospital Srinagar, copy whereof has been placed on record.

(3.) It is further stated that Challan against the respondents was filed before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Ramban, under Sections 307/323/325/345 RPC but the learned Court, without appreciating the facts and the nature of injuries, as reflected in the medical certificate issued by the authority concerned, has committed a legal error in discharging the respondents for offence under Section 307 RPC by order impugned. It is stated that while framing the charge, the learned trial Court should not have only relied upon the opinion of the doctor regarding sufficiency of the injuries to cause death but should have also taken into consideration the evidence and circumstances which only suggested that the intention of the respondents was to kill the petitioner.