- (1.) Instant revision has been filed impugning the order dated 17.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby application under Section 216 read with Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for deleting the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and for sending the case to Illaqa Magistrate for trial, has been dismissed. In brief, facts relevant for disposal of the petition are to the- effect that FIR No.193 dated 01.11.2011, under Sections 307/323/324/506 read with Section 34 IPC has been registered against the petitioners at Police Station City Khanna, at the behest of one Anil Dutt Phali. The root cause of the occurrence is that wife of petitioner no.1 and sister of petitioner no.3 moved application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain information with regard to rent and house-tax of govt. shops, the person who were running Sweet Corner, Samrala Road, Khanna, allotment of the same etc. In the FIR, it is mentioned that petitioner no.1, his son-Prince, Maninder Sharma along with two unidentified persons were standing and caught hold of complainant from both arms and petitioner-Yograj Sharda was having some iron type punch in his hand and inflicted blow with an intention to kill the complainant. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that as per the MLR, six injuries have been inflicted on the person of complainant, out of which injuries no.1, 4 and 5 are merely swelling while injury no.6 is complaint of pain and no external injury corresponding to the said injuries was mentioned in the MLR. However, injury no.2 is an incised wound of size 0.6 x 0.3 cm while injury no.3 is an abrasion. Upon X-ray examination of injuries no3, 4 and 5, the same were declared simple. Therefore, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out on the basis of medical evidence. However, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners under Section 307 IPC under the influence of complainant. It is also pleaded that statements of Ambica Pandit and Iqbal Singh, prosecution witnesses, reveal that injuries inflicted on the person of complainant do not fall within the purview of Section 307 IPC. It is also pleaded that offence under Section 307 IPC is made out only, if such act is done with intention or knowledge that it can cause death of the concerned victim. Section 307 IPC cannot be read in isolation and has to be read and interpreted as per the provisions of Section 320 IPC. It is prayed that no offence is made out against the petitioners under Section 307 IPC and the impugned order may be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that alleged injuries inflicted on the person of complainant and Chamkaur Singh have been declared to be simple in the medical evidence and are on the non-vital parts of the body, as such charge framed under Section 307 IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the impugned order needs to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon Pritam Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, 2010 3 RCR(Cri) 395, Dilbag Singh and others vs. The State of H.P., 2006 1 RCR(Cri) 552 and Jamil Ahmed vs. Hanif and others, 1995 3 RCR(Cri) 50. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that charge has rightly been framed by the trial Court as the injuries inflicted with a punch like weapon on the person of complainant are on the vital parts of body and the same was done with intention to kill him. Due to the impact of injury, the complainant fell down on the ground and he was saved by the employees of the contractors. Learned counsel further contended that intention can only be inferred from the evidence which is ultimately to be led before the trial Court. It cannot be appreciated at this stage. The trial Court is competent to frame charge merely on suspicion. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioners had earlier filed CRR- 1233-2013 which was disposed of on 10.04.2013 relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy under Section 216 Cr.P.C. read with Section 228 Cr.P.C. by moving an appropriate application before the Sessions Court. In the said order, it was observed that learned Sessions Court would pass a speaking order if such an application was moved. Learned counsel further contended that in the said order, it was also observed that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to re-appropriate the strength of the evidence of the prosecution as reflected from the material in report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. I am only concerned here with the application filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C. read with Section 228 Cr.P.C. whereby prayer has been made that charge allegedly framed under Section 307 IPC deserves to be deleted. The trial Court after elaborately discussing the evidence on record has recorded the following finding: "7. After hearing rival contentions of both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the applicants deserves to be rejected outrightly. The complainant categorically stated in his statement recorded before the police that on 1.11.2011 he was called by Contractor Ambica Pandit on the phone at about 1/1.30 P.M, at the place where the construction work was going on and some persons were raising the obstruction in construction work. When he went there, at the place of construction, accused Yograj Sharda, his son Prince and one Maninder Sharma along with two unknown persons were present there, who caught hold of him. The accused Yograj Sharda exhorted the other accused not to allow him to go alive from the spot. Thereafter, accused Prince and Maninder Sharda caught hold of him from the arms and accused Yograj Sharda who was having one Punch like weapon in his hand gave blow on his nose with the intention to kill him. He fell down on the ground, due to impact and was rescued by the employees of the Contractor. Thereafter, he was removed to Civil Hospital where the accused had already been reached after the occurrence. They threatened him with dire consequence and also called names to him. Amarjit Singh Ambica Pandit and Iqbal Singh, witnesses also corroborated the version of prosecution. Thus, there are sufficient material on the file to prima facie reach at the conclusion that accused Yograj Sharda and others inflicted injuries on the person of complainant Anil Kumar Phali, with an intention to kill him. It is settled proposition of law that charge can be framed merely on the basis of strong suspicion. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused that only simple injuries were inflicted on the nose of complainant, cannot be accepted at this stage of case. The said matter can only be adjudicated at the time of final decision of the case on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties. However, the prosecution has yet to adduce evidence, after the framing of charge against the accused. At the stage of charge, the trial Court has merely to satisfy itself whether there is prima facie case made out against the accused or not from the documentary evidence placed by the prosecution along with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The veracity and genuineness of the evidence, which the prosecution has adduced on the file, is not to be meticulously examined, at this stage. In other words, the probative value of the material on record cannot be looked into. The trial court has to proceed on the footing with the material, brought on record, by the prosecution and prosecution version has to be accepted as true at that stage.;