Crl. Rev. No. 3394 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 3394 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.01.2011 Ravinder Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioners 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Accused has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the order dated 26.10.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Fatehabad in Case No. 22-SC pursuant to FIR No. 77 dated 18.4.2010 under Section 326/307/452/34 IPC registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad whereby request of the accused to discharge him has been declined and charges against the accused under Sections 452, 326, 307 read with Section 34 IPC have been framed. In nutshell prosecution story is that Suman Devi has lodged an FIR against the accused with the allegation that her Dever Dara Singh is a vagabond type of person and about 6-7 years ago, he had brought a vagabond (Awara type) woman and had started Crl. Rev. No. 3394 of 2010 (O&M) 2 living in our neighbourhood. Ravinder son of Ranjit Caste Chamar Resident of Lahrian used to remain lying there day and night and they had been indulging in wrong activities. Suman Devi and her husband had counseled them many a times but they did not mend their ways. On that account they had a quarrel with them many a times. The Panchayat and the members of the family had got the matter compromised and he had taken away that woman with him and had gone away from the village but he was nursing a grievance on that account that they had spoiled (destroyed) his house. On 18.4.2010 she and her husband alongwith their children were sleeping in the courtyard of the house. At about 4.00 PM her Daver Dara Singh who was carrying a bottle containing acid in his hands and Ravinder who was carrying a Gandasi in his hands came there. On hearing their noise, she and her husband had woken up and both of them stated that they would teach a lesson to us for ruining their house. After saying so, Ravinder had given a gandasi blow on the right arm of her husband and on her back and Dara had thrown acide on the face of my husband. Some drops of the acid had also fallen on her body. On that account, the face (mouth) and the body of her husband was burnt and his left eye was totally lost. On our noise, our neighbourer Mahender Singh Balmiki and Puran Rewari reached the spot. On seeing the, Dara and Ravinder had run away from the spot. They were taken to CHC, Bhuna and thereafter, they were taken to G.H., Fatehabad and from there they had come to Agroha Medical (College and Hospital). Initially FIR was registered by the Police under Section Section 326, 452, 307 read with Section 34 IPC, however, on the Crl. Rev. No. 3394 of 2010 (O&M) 3 basis of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after thorough investigation Section 307 IPC was also added against the accused. After thorough investigation challan was submitted by the Police under Section 324, 326, 452, 307 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused persons. Learned Magistrate committed the trial to Sessions Judge and before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, learned counsel for the accused had argued discharge of the accused from the charges under Section 307 IPC on the ground that injuries suffered by the injured are although grievous in nature but not dangerous to the life, hence, charges under Section 307 IPC can not be said to have been made out against the accused. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not agree with the accused and declined to discharge the accused from the charges under Section 307 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order has observed as under:- “The Court has given thoughtful consideration to the submission of the parties. For the purpose of framing charge, a prima facie case has to be seen and merit of the allege offence cannot be meticulously scrutinized. Bare perusal of Section 307 IPC makes it clear that determinative question for framing charge under the said section is not nature of injuries which an accused had inflicted and is rather the intention or knowledge with which the accused had attempted to cause injuries. The Crl. Rev. No. 3394 of 2010 (O&M) 4 accused in the present case, had gone to the house of the complainant late in the night when the complainant and her husband were sleeping. They had carried deadly weapons i.e. gandasi and a bottle of acid with them. Immediately on waking up of the husband of complainant, they both had sprung into action and used their weapons to cause injuries to the complainant and her husband. May be that inflicted injuries were declared grievous but the manner in which the accused trespassed into the house, used their weapons and committed assault would at least prima facie, if not conclusively point out that they had intention to finish the injured. So, a prima facie case is made out to frame charge against the accused in respect of offences punishable under Sections 452, 326, 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Let the accused be charged accordingly.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that admittedly injured has received only grievous injuries which are not dangerous to life, hence, accused can not be charged in an offence under Section 307 IPC. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Girija Shankar vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 Crl. L.J., 1388 has observed as under:- “To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance Crl. Rev. No. 3394 of 2010 (O&M) 5 in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.” In view of the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Girija Shankar (supra), it is no more res integra that nature of the injury on the body of the injured although play very vital role, however, to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC intention of the accused while inflicting injury plays an important role. If injuries are caused with intention to kill then offence under Section 307 IPC prima facie can be attributed to the accused. Since prima facie Crl. Rev. No. 3394 of 2010 (O&M) 6 learned Addl. Sessions Judge has found that injuries were caused on the body of the injured with intention to kill, therefore, framing of charge under Section 307 IPC can not be said to be illegal. In view of this no interference is called for. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 21.01.2011 JUDGE reena