Crl. Revision No. 618 of 2010(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 618 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:March 26, 2010 Swarn Singh and others ---Petitioners versus Ram Pal and another ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.JBS Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners *** GURDEV SINGH, J. This revision petition has been preferred by Swarn Singh and others, petitioners-accused against the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which she dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 6.8.2008, rejecting the plea of Ram Pal-respondent No. 1-complainant to summon the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and remanding back the case for passing a fresh order after appreciating the evidence on the record. According to the complainant, on 23.11.2005, he along with Crl. Revision No. 618 of 2010(O&M) {2} other family members was present in the house when at about 6.30 a.m. he heard the shrieks of his mother-Surjit Kaur and rushed towards the gate. He found that all the accused entered his house and at that time Swarn Singh was armed with hockey, Kulwinder Singh was armed with kirpan, Tirath Ram and Surinder Pal were armed with dat, Malkiat Singh was armed with hockey, Parminder Kaur and Harbhajan Singh were armed with sotas, Paramjit Singh was armed with dat. Harbhajan Singh was armed with dang and Kulwinder Singh was armed with a kirpan. All of them encircled Surjit Kaur and started causing injuries to her with the help of their respective weapons. Tirath Ram gave a blow with his dat on the right side of her head and Malkiat Singh gave a blow with his hockey on the left side of her head. Complainant himself, his brother Naresh Kumar and his father came forward to save Surjit Kaur, upon which Surinder Pal gave a blow with his dat on the head of the complainant whereas Malkiat Singh gave a blow with his hockey on his head. Swaran Singh gave another blow with his hockey on the back of Naresh Kumar and Parminder Kaur gave two dang blows on the head of Tarsem Lal. Surinder Pal also gave a blow with his dat on the head of the complainant. An alarm was raised on which the accused escaped from the spot with their respective weapons. The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken, as one of the accused was himself posted in police department and the father of the other accused was posted as ASI at Amritsar. Naresh Kumar appeared before the Senior Superintendent of Police, but his complete statement was not recorded. FIR No. 461 dated 30.11.2005 was registered against the accused under Sections 323, 324/149,452 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. During medical examination, injuries were found on the person of all the injured. Surjit Crl. Revision No. 618 of 2010(O&M) {3} Kaur was admitted in DMC, Ludhiana, and it was found that the left frontal EDH with mid line shift of 8MM to the right side, for which the surgery was performed. The doctor in connivance with the police described that injury only as grievous. However, the doctor of DMC categorically stated that injury to be dangerous to life. The complainant produced his preliminary evidence and on the basis thereof the accused were summoned to stand their trial only for the offences under Section 323, 324/149 and 148 IPC. The plea of the complainant to summon the accused under Section 307 IPC was not accepted on the ground that there was no opinion of the doctor that the injury on the person of Surjit Kaur was dangerous to life. Against that order the complainant filed revision petition, which was decided by Additional Sessions Judge, who, vide the above said impugned order and in view of the evidence, which was produced by the complainant during the preliminary evidence, found the finding of the trial court to be perverse and remanded back the case for passing a fresh order after appreciating the evidence on the record. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no endorsement was made on the Bed Head Ticket of Surjit Kaur nor any opinion was given by the doctor in the Medico Legal Report that the injury on the person of Surjit Kaur was dangerous to life. It was the doctor of DMC, Ludhiana, who without any basis described the injury as dangerous to life. On the basis of the statement of that doctor, it cannot be concluded that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners- accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC also. Therefore, the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers from illegality and is liable to be Crl. Revision No. 618 of 2010(O&M) {4} set aside. There is no merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners-accused. It is very much clear from the impugned order itself that Surjit Kaur was treated by Dr. Ashwani Kumar Chaudhary, DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, and he was examined in preliminary evidence as CW-7. He specifically stated that Surjit Kaur was admitted in the hospital in Comma on 24.11.2005 and on diagnose, it was found to be the case of head injury and brain hemorrhage on the left side of the brain, for which emergency operation was carried by him on 24.11.2005. He also stated that the head injury on the person of Surjit Kaur was dangerous to life. It was on the basis of that statement of the doctor witness, that the Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that finding recorded by the trial court that offence under Section 307 is not made out, was perverse. The summoning order was to be passed on the basis of the preliminary evidence produced before the Judicial Magistrate. For summoning the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the Magistrate was not to see if the evidence so produced had been collected initially or subsequently. It is not possible in every case to give medical opinion about the nature of particular injury immediately. In order to give such an opinion, the doctor many a times relies upon the X-ray report, CT Scan report, Surgical notes and other reports. Dr. Ashwani Kumar Chaudhary had treated Surjit Kaur and had performed the operation also. It was only thereafter that he formed that opinion. That opinion could not have been brushed aside by the Judicial Magistrate merely on the ground that such opinion was not given in the Bed Head Ticket of the injured. An illegality was committed by the Judicial Magistrate, which is corrected by Crl. Revision No. 618 of 2010(O&M) {5} the Additional Sessions Judge. The order passed by Additional Sessions Judge does not suffers from any illegality nor the same can be said to be incorrect nor it can be said that the propriety required that such an order should not have been recorded. Therefore, the same cannot be interfered while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE March 26, 2010 PARAMJIT