S.S.DEWAN,J - (1.) THIS order of mine will dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 380 and 478 of 1980 filed by Ram Nivas complainant and the State of Haryana respectively since common question of law and fact have arisen.
(2.) THE relevant facts as disclosed in the First Information Report are these : That on the fateful day of about 1 pm Hira Lal and his son Sube Singh were constructing a small parda wall in their own plot at village Supatheri with a view to make it a secured place for ladies to take bath. Makhan accused came there and stopped them from doing so. Hira Lal told him that they were constructing the wall on their own land which led to an exchange of hot words between them and in the meanwhile, Suraj Bhan, Parkash and Bir Singh accused also came there. It is said that Murli Dhar PW reached there and during the course of altercation Makhan got enraged, lifted a brick bat and struck it on the chest of Hira Lal and that thereafter Suraj Bhan caught hold of Hira Lal and Parkash and Bir Singh gave him fist and slap blows. Immediately thereafter Hira Lal succumbed to his injury. After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned and committed. It would appear that the Sessions Judge, Narnaul, was influenced by the argument of the defence that initially Makhan Singh came to the place of occurrence and started an altercation with Hira Lal while objecting to the construction of a wall and on hearing the commotion the other three accused namely Bir Singh, Parkash and Suraj Bhan came there and they only caught hold of Hira lal and gave him fists and slap blows. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly charged Makhan of the offence under Section 302 and the others under Section 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved the complainant as well as the State of Haryana have challenged the order of the Sessions Judge on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in not framing the charge against the aforesaid three accused under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code.
(3.) I have heard the parties and given my due consideration to all the circumstance. At the stage of framing of charge the court has not to minutely and meticulously go into the merits of the evidence collected by the prosecution and consider in details and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgement which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the mater under section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At that stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or the trial is sure to end in his conviction.;