Crl. Revision No. 2970 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2970 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.02.2010 1. Satish s/o Rajinder, 2. Chinto @ Kailash s/o Pawan Kumar, 3. Parveen s/o Rajinder 4. Mintoo s/o Pawan Kumar and 5. Raju @ Rajbir s/o Pawan Kumar All rs/o Ward No.10 NUH District Mewat (Nuh), Haryana ....... Revision petitioners Versus The State of Haryana ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate with Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate for the revision-petitioners. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition, has been filed by the petitioners, for setting aside the order dated 01.09.2009, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide which it framed the charge under Sections 148, 307, 323 and 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code . 2. I have heard the Counsel for the revision- petitioners, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. Crl. Revision No. 2970 of 2009 2 3. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, has submitted that no offence, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, from the allegations, contained in the FIR. He has further submitted that injury no.1 on the right parietal region of Devender , injured was not dangerous to life. He has further submitted that only an offence, punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. He has further submitted that the trial Court was wrong in framing charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He placed reliance on Atma Singh v. The State of Punjab , Ram Chand v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 799 , Deep Chand v. State of Haryana, 1987 (1) RCR (Criminal) 278 , Gurdev Singh and anr. Vs. State of Punjab, 1984(1) RCR (Criminal), 434 and Satpal v. State of Haryana, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 83 in support of his contention. He has further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 4. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision- petitioners, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is evident from the record that injury on the right parietal region of Devender was allegedly caused with a blunt weapon. It is further evident from the record that the said injury was declared Crl. Revision No. 2970 of 2009 3 to be dangerous to life by the doctor and, thus, an offence, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was incorporated in the FIR. It is also evident from the discharge summary, depicted in para no.7 of the revision-petition that Devender, injured was admitted on 05.09.2008 and was discharged on 09.09.2008. “NCCT Head shows: (1) EDH right Parietal Region: 1.69 5.10 cm (2) SAH with Depressed fracture right parietal Bone IHF in midline.” Hence the Medical Officer/CHC, Nuh, opined that the injury was dangerous to life. At the time of framing the charge, the Court is not required to go deep into the merits of the case. The Court is required to sift the material on record, to the limited extent to find out as to whether a prima facie case for the commission of any offence was made out or not. If, on scrutiny of the material placed on the record, the Court comes to the conclusion that a prima-facie case was made out, then by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that such opinion formed it is wrong. In the instant case, the injury was on the head of Devender, injured. The accused selected very vital part of the body of the injured and caused an injury on the same, which was declared to be dangerous to life, as stated above. The injury, thus, was allegedly caused on the person of the injured with such intention or knowledge and, under such circumstances, that if by that act, the death of Devender, had been caused, the accused would have been Crl. Revision No. 2970 of 2009 4 guilty of murder. The facts of the aforesaid cases, on which reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, are completely distinguishable. In those cases, in criminal appeals, this Court came to the conclusion that after scrutiny of the entire evidence, no offence, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. The Court below, exercised its discretion, in a judicious manner. The discretion exercised, cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. 5. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE February 04, 2010 dinesh