PREM KUMAR Vs. MANPHOOL RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, filed by the petitioner complainant and injured, it is prayed that order dated 01.04.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh under Sec. 228 (1)(A), Crimial P.C. may be quashed to the extent of discharging non-petitioners from offence under Sec. 307, I.P.C. Further, the trial Court may be directed to frame charge against the non-petitioners for offence under Sec. 307, I.P.C. and then commence the trial.

(2.) Main argument of learned counsel for the injured petitioner is that as per prosecution story fire-arm was used and petitioner Prem Kumar received injury from the firearm upon his left eye; meaning thereby, there was intention to cause death of the injured petitioner but, fortunately, death was not caused. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that for discharging non-petitioners from charge under Sec. 307, I.P.C. the trial Court took into consideration the premise that no opinion was given by the doctor that injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; but, in fact, in case of 307, I.P.C. intention is to be gathered. Here, in this case, admittedly, as per allegation of the prosecution the accused non-petitioners used fire-arm and injuries were received by petitioner Prem Kumar, out of which, injury No.2 was on the left eye of Prem Kumar.

(3.) As per the doctor, injured received permanent loss of eye but the doctor did not find that this injury was sufficient to cause death, therefore, learned trial Court while accepting the opinion of the doctor discharge the accused non-petitioners from offence under Sec. 307, I.P.C. and while exercising power under Sec. 228 (1)(A), Crimial P.C. forwarded the case for trial to Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate which is totally erroneous because, in the incident, serious injury was received by injured Prem Kumar and those injuries were received by him and one injury was sustained by Munni and Kaushlya each and, so also, Preveen Kumar received two simple injuries; meaning thereby, offence under Sec. 307, I.P.C. is in existence but trial Court ignored all these facts and discharged the non-petitioners from offence under Sec. 307, I.P.C. which is totally illegal.