IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 636 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 17.3.2009 Bughla @ Gurpyar Singh & Anr. .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & Anr. .... Respondents. Present:- Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral) While exercising powers under Section 216 Cr.P.C, the trial Court has framed an additional charge under Section 302 IPC against the petitioners on the basis of the report that the deceased Dhan Singh died due to aluminum phosphide poisoning with complicated atherosclerosis, coupled with injuries described which were anti mortem in nature and its complication. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that complainant is none-else but the sister of petitioner No.2. Dhan Singh had died on 6.4.2008 whereas alleged occurrence took place on 27.1.2008. Petitioners had been in custody at the time of death of Dhan Singh. Aluminum phosphide poisoning could not have been done by the petitioners as the deceased was under the supervision of complainant herself as well as Mange Ram PW. In view of the such circumstances framing of charge under Section 302 IPC is claimed to be unreasonable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aluminum phospide poisoning is the main reason for the death of Dhan Singh for which Charanjit Kaur complainant and her husband are Crl. Rev. No. 636 of 2009 -2- responsible. Learned counsel, on the asking of the Court, informs that no such complaint has been filed by the petitioner on the basis of report of the Forensic Science Laboratory against Charanjit Kaur and her husband. After carefully examining circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that no doubt aluminum phospide poisoning has been described as one of the causes of death but the cause of death has been described as said poisoning coupled with injuries which are attributed to the petitioner. No opinion can be formed at this stage whether offence under Section 302 IPC is made out but the fact remains that death is an indirect or remote result of the injuries. It is always open to the Court at the time of final decision as and when a particular case falls under the definition of murder or culpible homecide or culpible homecide not amounting to murder to frame a charge under Section 302 IPC. I have also considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is apprehension of arrest under Section 302 IPC in the charge. It is observed that in case the petitioner is to be arrested it will be open for him to file an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C to seek the releif available to him. No ground is made out for interference. Therefore, the persent petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to take any legal remedy against the culprits as argued above by learned counsel for the petitioner. March 17, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge