Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 April, 2024
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
2024:PHHC:042666
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRM-13892-2024 in/and
CRR-626-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 01.04.2024
Ranjit ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.
*****
FIR DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES
NO.
514 11.8.2019 Camp Palwal, District 147, 148, 323, 324, 506 IPC
Palwal (Sections 307, 354, 452 IPC and
Section 25 of Arms Act deleted
lateron)
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
CRM-13892-2024
There is a delay of 23 days in filing this revision petition.
Notice of the application be issued to non-applicant/respondent.
integrity of this order/judgment
CRR-626-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:042666
On the asking of this Court, Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan,
AAG, Haryana., accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Copy of
application supplied.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and delay of 23 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.
Main case
1. The petitioner assails order dated 28.11.2023 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal (Annexure P-1), vide which an
application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. submitted by the
petitioner/complainant seeking addition of charges so as to frame
charges for offences punishable under Sections 307, 354-A, 452 of
IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, has been dismissed.
2. It is not in dispute that it is a case of cross-versions wherein two
persons from the side of the complainant namely Sandeep and Rahul
had sustained one injury each on their leg. While the case of the
complainant is that the said injuries were in fact caused by fire-arm,
as is also suggestive from the MLRs (Annexure P-7), whereas the
trial Court has held that the same are not fire-arm injuries mainly on
the premises that the injured at the time of their medical examination
did not disclose so to the Doctor.
3. Learned counsel in this regard has drawn the attention of this Court to
the aforesaid MLRs (Annexure P-7) wherein while describing the
injuries it has specifically been mentioned that there was blacknening
around the wounds. It has thus been submitted that the injuries
integrity of this order/judgment
CRR-626-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:042666
apparently having been caused with fire-arm, Section 307 of IPC
would be attracted.
4. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
5. Even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the injuries in
question were caused with a fire-arm, still the fact remains that it is a
case of single injury sustained by the two injured from the
complainant side and that too on non-vital part i.e. on their leg. There
is nothing on record to show that any effort was made to cause more
injuries. Under these circumstances, it is indeed difficult to hold that
the injuries in question had been inflicted with an intention to cause
death. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order
(Annexure P-1) and the same is hereby upheld.
6. Finding no merit in the instant petition and the same is hereby
dismissed.
01.04.2024 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
mohan JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
integrity of this order/judgment
