IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1892 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.8.2011 Munish Bhamba ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The instant petition has been filed impugning the order dated 1.8.2011 by which charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that on the fateful day i.e. 16.2.2011 he is said to have beaten up the deceased who was a worker at the local eatery and was aged 65 years. The petitioner is said to have given a kick blow on the testicles and another kick blow in the abdomen and the third kick blow in his chest. He was kept in eatery itself for the night but in the morning when his condition deteriorated he was taken to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where he died. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the post- mortem report as also the histopathological report to contend that no Crl.Rev.No.1892 of 2011 (O&M) -2- mark of injury was visible on the body of the deceased and that the cause of death has been mentioned as natural on account of heart ailment from which he was suffering. He thus contends that the framing of charge under Section 304 Part-II is not commensurate with the allegations that have been levelled against him. He thus pleads that the charge against the petitioner should be appropriately toned down in accordance with the FIR which was registered under Section 304 IPC. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. The parameters for the factors to be taken into consideration by a Court at the time of framing of charge are no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni, 2000(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 452 observed that at the time of framing of charge the Court is only to consider the material and form a prima facie opinion about the nature of the charge to be levelled against the accused. It is not required to look into the evidence deeply lest it prejudices the trial itself. Even suspicion is sufficient to sustain framing of a charge against an accused. The obvious reason is that in the eventuality of the evidence not being sufficient to sustain the said charge against an accused the conviction can be toned down appropriately and the Court is empowered to finally convict a person for a lesser offence. At this stage of the proceedings, for the reasons which have been stated above and also for the reasons that this court is convinced that the charge framed against the petitioner is not alarmingly Crl.Rev.No.1892 of 2011 (O&M) -3- disproportionate to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 24.8.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss