RAJIVE BHALLA, J. - (1.) PRAYER in this petition filed under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the order dated 14.3.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 452, 307, 34, 467 of the IPC.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court erred in framing charges under Section 307 of the IPC. A perusal of the evidence collected by the prosecution and the allegations levelled in the FIR do not disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. It is further contended that as no injury was inflicted, no offence under Section 307 of the IPC was made out. It is further argued that in the absence of an injury suffered by the complainant the petitioner's act would be a mere attempt to commit an offence therefore, the learned trial Court erred in framing charges under Section 307 of the IPC against the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon a judgment titled as Sagayam v. State of Karnataka, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 840. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submits that the existence of an injury is not necessary for the commission of offence under Section 307 of the IPC. The nature of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is governed not by the injury alone but by the intention of the assailant. The nature of the injury or the absence thereof is only a circumstance, for or against the commission of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC. The absence of an injury, cannot by itself be the sole circumstance, to hold that petitioner could not be charged for the commission of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.;