STATE OF J&K Vs. BIKRAM SINGH
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. -
(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 30 -06 -1997 passed by learned session judge, Jammu in case No.263/sessions, whereby
charge under section 304 part II R.P.C. was framed against the
respondent, state questioned this order as according to it at this stage
keeping in view the materials on record, a prima facie case for charging
the respondent under Section 302 RPC, is clearly made out.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision need to be briefly referred to. As per prosecution case, deceased Gurbachan Singh alongwith his
brother Darshan Lal was carrying on utensils shop at Janipura, Jammu.
Deceased owed Rs. 900/ - to the respondent No. 1 for supply of stoves.
(3.) WITH a view to make demand of this amount, respondent is stated to have visited the shop of the deceased and demanded money. Deceased did
not make the payment and informed the respondent that these are earlier
hour of the day and he is not in a position to make the payment. At such
point of time, further case of the prosecution is that the deceased was
threatened by the respondent to the effect that in case his payment is
not made by the evening, he will not leave the deceased to live. In this
background respondent is stated to have visited the shop of the deceased
around 6.15 P.M. for effecting recovery of his outstanding dues from
latter, again when demand was made, deceased is stated to have informed
the respondent that because of end of the month he is not in a position
to pay the amount outstanding, however, he will soon pay the same. At
this point of time, respondent is stated to have taken out a screwdriver
measuring 25 Cms its handle was 9 Cms and length of the portion below, it
was 15 Cms. front portion of the screw driver was 3 Cms and 1/2 wide,
with this screw driver hit a single blow on the left temporal region
above the roof of the ear, this resulted in causing injury to the
deceased. Before causing this injury, because of non -payment of his
outstanding dues, respondent is stated to have hurled abuses on deceased.
After the injury has been caused to the deceased by the respondent, his
brother Darshan kumar raised an alarm and the people from nearby rushed
to the spot, when respondent fled away from the spot. Gurbachan Singh was
removed to the Hospital in an injured and precarious condition, finally
on 24.01.1997, he succumbed to injury afore -mentioned and thus died.
After completion of the investigation of the case, respondent was sent to face the trial under section 302/452 R.P.C and after having been commentated to the Court of Sessions, in the course of proceedings impugned order has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge below.
Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length and with their assistance record of the case has also been examined. Learned
Government Advocate submitted that in the circumstances as well as the
back -ground of this case, learned court below has fallen into error while
passing the impugned order. Prima facie statement of Darshan Lal brother
of the deceased, who being the eye witness of the incident clearly
indicated that it was not a case of sudden injury having been inflicted
by the respondent upon the deceased, but it was a clear cut case of
premeditated act on his part, when he came duly prepared as well as armed
with the weapon of offence, a screw driver and when money was not
forth -coming, he with a view to do away with the life of the deceased
caused injury on a vital part of the body knowing fully well that it is
likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus he urged for
setting aside the impugned order and directing the Court below to frame
charge under section 302RPC and out the respondent to trial there under.
Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while
cotroverting all the pleas urged on behalf of the State has supported the
impugned order and also placed reliance on 1997 Cr. L.J. 831, Mavial
Thomban Nambir, Appellant Vs. State of Kerala, Respondent and 1995 CRIL.J
4168, Saurp Singh, Appellant Vs. State of Haryana, represented by the Home Secretary, Respondent, WITH Giani Ram, Petitioner Vs. State of
Haryana and others. Respondents and on the basis of these decisions of
the Supreme Court urged the impugned order neither suffers from any
impropriety nor illegality, as such it deserves to be upheld and revision
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.