MOHD. DIN Vs. NEK MOHD. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this revision petition, petitioner/complainant has prayed for setting aside of order dated 30.06.2015 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu by virtue of which accused-respondents have been charge-sheeted under Sections 325/323/451/506/147 instead of Section 307 RPC on the strength of grounds set out in it. It has also been prayed that there was specific allegation of outraging modesty of woman, but no charge under section 354 ROC has been framed.

(2.) The main facts emanating from the case set up by the petitioner are that on 01.07.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused by making unlawful assembly started damaging the wall of the collapsed house of the complainant, to which son of the complainant-Farooq Ahmed asked accused not to damage the standing wall of the house and the accused hit the Farooq Ahmed on the head with a brick causing serious injury on the head and also outraged the modesty of Parveen Bibi and caught hold her from the breast, tore her clothes and dragged her. It is contended that Farooq Ahmed suffered multiple head injuries, i.e., hemorrhagic contusion right frontal region, continued depressed, fracture of frontal bone right side, fracture frontal sinus extending upto rod of right orbit. A certificate in this regard was issued by Board of Doctors of Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana and same is annexed as Annexure-B to the petition. It is further contended that FIR No.38/2014 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/451/354/323/147/506 RPC was also registered with Police Station Gharota and challan was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Sub Registrar), Jammu who committed the same before the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu and accordingly it was transferred to 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, who at the time of framing of charge modified the charge by giving explanation that as per the medical opinion the injuries on the person is grievous in nature caused by blunt object and the injuries suffered by Mohd. Irfan and Arsha Bibi are simple in nature. The accused was armed with lathi and gathered the intention of the accused and came to the conclusion that since the accused were not having lethal weapons, so the offence under Section 307 RPC is not made out. It is contended that the finding returned by learned trial Judge is not based on facts and is contrary to the record, therefore, the modification of the charge is unsustainable. Feeling aggrieved of the order impugned, petitioner has challenged it on the following grounds:-

(3.) Whereas other side has supported the order of Court below.