- (1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order dated 21.5.2013 passed by Sh. Parveen Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide which charges under Sections 307/149 IPC have not been framed against respondents No.2 to 8.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, case of the complainant/petitioner is that on 13.5.2012 her neighbour Mahabir son of Baru Ram took away log of wood (balli) lying in the gali in front of her house. She along with her husband went to Mahabir and asked him as to why he had taken away the balli. When they tried to uproot the balli, the accused Mahabir, Darshani and Sonu started quarrelling with them. Accused Sonu gave a blow of Khudpala on the head of her husband. Her husband became unconscious and fell on the ground. Accused Mahabir and Darshani gave her leg and fist blows. Her sons Monu and Vikram and their neighbours Pardeep son of Surender and Krishan son of Bhira also came at the spot. They lifted her husband to take him to the hospital and came in the street. Accused Raju son of Ram Kishan, Raju son of Mahabir, Ramesh son of Mahabir, Situ and Sanju sons of Karan Singh came there with lathies and dandas in their hands. They raised lalkara. The accused started beating her and her sons.
(3.) THEY raised a noise whereupon number of neighbours came at the spot and rescued them. As per Board of Doctors, Ram Kishan received three fractures on the skull. However, keeping in view the seat of injury, the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 307 IPC against Sonu whereas the other co -accused were charge -sheeted under other provisions of law. The only grievance ventilated by the counsel for the petitioner is that all other accused should have been charge -sheeted under Sections 307/149 IPC as they were members of unlawful assembly and committed offence with their common object. I have considered the said submission. So far as accused Raju son of Mahabir, Raju son of Ram Kishan, Situ, Ramesh and Sanju are concerned, they have come at the spot after receiving injuries by husband of the complainant under Section 307 IPC. So, they cannot be said to have shared common object to cause injury dangerous to life to the husband of the complainant. So, the trial Court has rightly not framed charge under Section 307/149 IPC against them. So far as the accused Sonu, Mahabir and Darshani are concerned, according to case of the prosecution, they have taken part in the occurrence relating to offence under Section 307 IPC. The charge can be amended at any stage so, the petitioner is at liberty to move application before the trial Court after leading some evidence for framing charge under Section 307/149 IPC so far as accused Mahabir and Darshani are concerned. So far as the authority Md. Ankoos and others vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., 2010 1 RCR(Cri) 917 is concerned, that authority is distinguishable as in that case, all the accused came together whereas in the present case, there are two occurrences and the accused of one occurrence cannot be charged in respect of occurrence prior to their coming at the spot. So, at this stage, no ground for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. The revision stands disposed of with the observations made above.;