Deo narayan Thanvi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the order impugned.
(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh in the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 on the one hand stated that the injuries inflicted on person of Pramod Kumar and Manoj Kumar as per injury report dated 26.3.2007 were caused by gun shot and are grievous in nature and other on the basis of explanation received from the doctor he came to the conclusion that the injuries are not dangerous to life and caused by gun shot injuries. When the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that the injuries are gun shot and in the injury report it is mentioned that they are gun shot thereof explanation received at a later, it cannot be a sole ground for opining that the injuries are not from gun shot. For the purpose of framing charge the Court has to see the documents furnished by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. When there is a variance in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the medical evidence, which is corroborative in nature, the preference should be given.to time primary evidence. It is after the trial, the Court will arrive at the conclusion as to what is the value of the corroborative evidence and not at the stage of the charge.
(3.) Consequently, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh is per se contrary to law in discharging the accused under Section 307 I.P.C., in a case of gun shot injury when some injuries are grievous in nature.;