Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 April, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053420
CRR-1615-2021 [1] 2024:PHHC:053420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-1615-2021
Reserved on 04.04.2024
Date of decision: 22.04.2024
Ravinder Singh ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Argued by: Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Vashishth, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner/complainant against order dated 29.09.2021 whereby learned trial
Court passed order to frame charges under Sections 323, 325, 341, 308 read
with Section 149 IPC and under Section 148 IPC against respondents No.2 to
6.
2. The brief facts of the case are that FIR Annexure P-1 was
registered in this case under Sections 323, 325, 341, 308, 506 read with Section
149 IPC and under Section 148 IPC against respondents No.2 to 6 on the basis
of statement of the petitioner wherein he stated that he got married with Payal
daughter of Puran Singh, in 2016. Thereafter, his brother in law Parveen
Kumar starting interfering in his married life which resulted in marital discord
between the petitioner and his wife. On 31.10.2020, petitioner left for his
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053420
CRR-1615-2021 [2] 2024:PHHC:053420
house from grain market, Pehowa on his motor cycle and when he reached
near Mannat Palace, 5/6 boys who were on two motor cycles, intercepted him
and attacked him with wooden dandas, bindas and iron rods, as a result of
which, petitioner fell on the ground and tried to ran away towards pehowa but
was attacked by above said boys and the said unlawful assembly also included
his brother in law Parveen Kumar who gave iron rod blow on head of the
petitioner. The other accused also caused injuries on legs and head of
complainant and thereafter, the accused persons fled away from there after
extending threats. Petitioner was taken to CHC Pehowa for his treatment. After
completion of investigation, police presented challan against respondents No.2
to 6 and thereafter learned trial Court passed impugned order dated 29.09.2021
whereby charges under Sections 323, 325, 341, 308 read with Section 149 IPC
and under Section 148 IPC were framed against respondents No.2 to 6. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner has filed present revision petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of
occurrence, petitioner was attacked by the accused persons including
respondent No.2 Parveen Kumar who gave iron rod blow on head of the
petitioner which resulted into fracture of frontal bone (vital part of body of the
petitioner). The accused persons further caused multiple injuries to petitioner
including fracture of left leg. The counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the aforesaid injuries are fully explained in medico legal case
summary Annexure P-5 of petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has further
contended that the aforesaid head injury clearly shows intention of respondents
No.2 to 6 to kill the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner while referring to
Annexure P-5 has further submitted that aforesaid injuries were found to be
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053420
CRR-1615-2021 [3] 2024:PHHC:053420
'dangerous to life' but were later on declared as 'grievous' in nature by cutting
word 'dangerous' and by replacing it with word 'grievous'. The counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that subsequent opinion dated 17.12.2020
(Annexure P-6) with regard to grievous nature of injuries was given by some
other doctor and not by the same doctor who gave his medical opinion vide
(Annexure P-5). It is further contended that in the given circumstances, prima
facie case under Section 307 IPC is made out against respondent No.2, who
gave iron rod blow which caused fracture of frontal bone of petitioner. In this
context, the counsel for the petitioner referred to decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2015 titled as Jage Ram and Others Vs.
State of Haryana decided on 28.01.2015 wherein it was observed that for
purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury
capable of causing death should have been caused, such intention may also be
adduced from the other circumstances.
4. The State counsel while endorsing the contentions raised by
counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition be allowed.
5. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents
No.2 to 6 has submitted that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out against
respondents No.2 to 6. The counsel for the said respondents while referring to
(Annexure P-5) submits that the injuries found on persons of the petitioner were
declared as 'grievous' in nature by the concerned doctor as is evident from
medico legal case summary of petitioner. It is further submitted that no doubt,
firstly the concerned doctor had written that the injuries were 'dangerous to
life', but thereafter, word 'dangerous' was replaced by word 'grievous' and the
said cutting was attested by the concerned doctor at the same very time. It
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053420
CRR-1615-2021 [4] 2024:PHHC:053420
is further submitted that even the concerned doctor vide his opinion dated
17.12.2020 gave specific opinion that injury on frontal bone of petitioner was
found to be 'grievous' in nature and was not dangerous to life. The counsel for
respondents No.2 to 6 has further submitted that there was no intention of the
accused persons to cause any injury capable of causing death. It is further
submitted that present petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
6. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
7. Section 216 of Cr.P.C. provides that Court may alter or add to any
charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. In this regard, reference is
also made to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anant Prakash Sinha Vs.
State of Haryana (2016) 6 SCC 105.
8. At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned
not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an
offence, which if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the Court has to
see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the
innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at
the stage of framing of a charge, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another 2012 (4)
RCR Criminal 377.
9. In case of Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI (2007) 5
SCC 403, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the settled position is that if on
the basis of material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the
accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053420
CRR-1615-2021 [5] 2024:PHHC:053420
that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of the framing of the
charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into and
the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true.
Before framing a charge, the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material
placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the
accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence can
only be decided in the trial. Charge may although be directed to be framed
when their exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the Court must come
to a prima facie finding that their exists some materials therefor. Suspicion
alone without anything more cannot form the basis therefor or held to be
sufficient for framing charges.
10. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, it is prima facie
established on record that at the time of occurrence respondent No.2 Parveen
Kumar gave iron rod blow on head of petitioner Ravinder Singh and as per
medico legal case summary (Annexure P-5), petitioner suffered fracture of
frontal bone and fracture of left BB leg. Thus, it is apparent that fracture of
frontal bone of petitioner with an iron rod is attributed to respondent No.2. The
said injury was caused on vital part of the body of petitioner with an iron rod,
thus, making clear his intention. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jage Ram's case (supra) referred by counsel for the petitioner, it is settled
position of law that for purpose of Section 307 IPC, the intention of accused to
kill the victim is of great significance and outweighs nature of injury. In the
given circumstances, even if the nature of the concerned injury on person of
the petitioner was declared as 'grievous', the same will not benefit the accused
persons in a significant manner.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053420
CRR-1615-2021 [6] 2024:PHHC:053420
11. In light of the settled legal position coupled with the factual
aspects of the case as has been discussed above, intention of respondent No.2
to cause fatal injury on head of the petitioner capable of causing death, is
prima facie proved on record but the trial Court while ignoring all these
aspects, framed charge under Sections 308, 325, 323, 341 read with Section
149 IPC and Section 148 IPC, without taking into consideration the ingredients
of Section 307 IPC. No explanation is given by the trial Court why charge
under Section 308 IPC was preferred instead of Section 307 IPC, as material
on record reveal a higher offence and it was expected from the trial Court to
frame the charge for more grievous offence and not to dilute the same by
simply on the ground that accused were not challaned under Section 307 IPC
by the police. The trial Court was required to frame the charge under Section
307 IPC and in the alternative Section 308 IPC, even if, the police has
submitted challan under Section 308 IPC instead of that under Section 307
IPC.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 29.09.2021
passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Kurukshetra is set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to pass a fresh order to frame the
charges in view of the settled legal position and facts of the case as are
discussed above. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial
Court on the date already fixed in the trial.
22.04.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
