- (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated 06.06.2014, passed by the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar who allowed the revision filed by the complainant and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the case.
(2.) An occurrence took place on 19.02.2011. The complaint had been given by Karnail Singh. The petitioners were challaned under Sections 323, 325, 506, 34 IPC. An application was filed by the complainant for framing charge under Section 307 IPC. The trial Magistrate framed the charges under Sections 323, 325, 506, 34 IPC and dismissed the application filed by the complainant. Aggrieved with the order, the complainant preferred a revision petition on 30.10.2013 but later withdrew the same on 17.12.2013 without seeking any permission to file a fresh revision. Thereafter, he filed another revision which has been allowed by the Sessions Judge. The order passed by the trial Court was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration, in view of the observations made by it. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this revision assailing the order on the ground that the second revision was not maintainable and no permission was taken to file fresh revision. A plea has also been taken that the injuries were declared grievous in nature and it was not declared dangerous to life and the trial Court had rightly held that there were no prima facie grounds to add Section 307 IPC. It was pleaded that the injuries were caused with a blunt weapon and it would fall only under Section 325 IPC and charge under Section 307 IPC could not be framed. It was pleaded that the Investigating Officer who had added Section 307 IPC, did not have a good reputation and departmental proceedings were initiated against him and Section 307 IPC was deleted. The record of the trial Court had been summoned.
(3.) The submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that the complainant's application for adding Section 307 IPC had been dismissed and he had filed a revision which had withdrawn without seeking permission to file the revision again and the second revision was not maintainable. It was urged that opinion of the Medical Officer had been taken and the injury was not declared dangerous to life and it was caused with a danda and the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application but in revision, the Sessions Judge wrongly observed that the complainant had categorically said that the injury was caused with the intention to cause death and all the injuries were on the vital part of the body, leading to a fracture of the left parietal bone and would fall under Section 307 IPC. It was urged that on the basis of material on record, there was no justification for setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the Magistrate nor there was any reason to remit the case back to the trial Court for reconsideration. It was urged that Neurosurgeon of PGI had given its opinion that the injury was grievous and charge could have been framed only under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC. Reliance was placed upon Basant Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1986 2 RCR(Cri) 245, Pritam Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, 2010 3 RCR(Cri) 395 and Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, 2001 4 RCR(Cri) 312. The submission on behalf of the complainant was that the revision was withdrawn as there was a technical defect and it was filed again. It was urged that there was a fracture on the parietal bone and the injury was on the vital part of the body and in a case under Section 307 IPC, it is the intention which matters and the injury had been given on the head which resulted in a fracture and the case would fall under Section 307 IPC.;