CRR NO.634 OF 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CRR NO.634 OF 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION 17.10.2011 Umesh @ Monu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raja Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.01.2010 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which charge has been framed against the petitioner under Sections 307, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, has not taken into consideration the opinion given by the Board of Doctors, which was constituted with regard to injuries No.1 and 2, which were initially declared to be dangerous to life vide opinion dated 14.10.2009 of the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kaithal, on the basis of which Section 307 IPC was added in the FIR. He contends that the Board of Doctors, in its report dated 10.12.2009, had opined that these two injuries were simple in nature and not dangerous to life. He refers to a noting dated 17.01.2010 given by the S.H.O., Police Station Pundri (Annexure A-3), which he received under the Right to Information Act, wherein it is mentioned so. He further contends that it has been written in the note that a separate application CRR NO.634 OF 2010 (O&M) -2- was presented before the Learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal but it was orally ordered that accused-Umesh Walia can lead evidence in this regard during the trial. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order and also Annexure A-3 dated 17.01.2010. A categoric question has been put up by the Court as to whether the opinion of the Board of Doctors is on the record of the Sessions Judge or a supplementary challan has been presented by the prosecuting agency before the Court, to which Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that it is not so. He further contends that the report of the Board of Doctors should have been taken into consideration by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal, according to the noting dated 17.01.2010 given by the S.H.O., Police Station Pundri, as the same was brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge, Kaithal. The contentions as raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that it is merely a noting, which has been given by the S.H.O., Police Station Pundri (Annexure A-3), which is not a part of the judicial record of the trial Court. While considering the question of framing of charge, the trial Court cannot travel beyond the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. or a supplementary challan, which may be presented by the investigating agency on further investigation. The trial Court has strictly, in accordance with law, proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner on the basis of the material on record, which cannot be faulted with. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. 17.10.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE