Crl. Revision No. 984 of 2003 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 984 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 24, 2011 Roop Kaur and others ...... Petitioners Versus Bal Singh and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest ? Present : Mr. Naveen Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 11.3.2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, by virtue of which the application for amendment and framing of additional charge, moved by the prosecution, was dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that a case bearing FIR No.67 dated 5.7.1997 under Sections 302/37 of Indian Penal Code etc. was registered at Police Station Rangar Nangal against Gurdeep Singh etc. During the investigation of that case, Gurdeep Singh Crl. Revision No. 984 of 2003 (O&M) 2 made a statement that on 5.7.1997 in the evening, when he returned to his house, he found his brother and mother in injured condition. He was pushed to the haveli by Malkiat Singh, whereas other co-accused were also present and inflicted him injuries. When the accused snatched the carbine, shots were fired from it hitting Malkiat Singh and Sukhdev Singh. During the course of trial the learned public prosecutor filed an application stating that the injuries suffered by Roop Kaur was declared grievous in nature and as such the charge be amended and be framed under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. It is admitted case of the prosecution that Roop Kaur, who had allegedly received the injuries, was medically examined on 6.7.1997 whereas the alleged incident had taken place on 5.7.1997 and during recording her statement, she has not specifically disclosed as to who had inflicted the injuries on her person. Besides this, no other eye-witness of the incident has named the accused for causing injuries on the left eye of Roop Kaur. In the absence of any material available on the record, agreed with the oral statement of the prosecution witness the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in arriving at the conclusion that there is no sufficient material for amendment of charge or for framing additional charge under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code and as such has rightly dismissed the application filed by the prosecution. I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge March 24, 2011 Anand