Crl. Revision No.1501 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1501 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 9, 2010 Prem Kumar ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.S. Goraya, Advocate, for the petitioner. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 25.3.2010, whereby charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially an electricity wire and a pillow used at the time of commission of murder were taken in police possession on 29.9.2009. Thereafter, on receipt of report of the chemical examiner it was found that the deceased had died due to consumption of poison. Challan was presented under Section 306 IPC. There was no material available on record which required the charge to be framed against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. As per the FIR, Kabal Singh deceased had gone to meet Monika on 26.9.2009 at about 7 p.m. However, Kabal Singh did not return home. Crl. Revision No.1501 of 2010 2 On inquiry, on 27.9.2009, by the complainant Gurdeep Singh he was informed by Monika and her father Prem Kumar that Kabal Singh would be reach home by the next evening. However, Kabal Singh did not return back home. On 29.9.2009 the complainant learnt that a dead body was lying in the sugarcane field of Avtar Singh. Then the complainant reached there and he found that the dead body was of his son Kabal Singh. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Kabal Singh, remarked that the cause of death will be given after the receipt of chemical examination report. FIR was lodged under Sections 302/34 IPC and on receipt of the report of chemical examiner the offence was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 306 IPC. As per the report of the chemical examiner organo phosphorous chemical compound was found in the viscera of the deceased. The trial Court after going through the documents available with the final report had framed charged against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC. At the time of framing of the charge the trial Court is required to see as to whether a prima facie case exists against the accused or not. It would only be seen during trial as to whether the deceased had consumed poison and committed suicide or whether poison had been administered to the deceased by the petitioner and his co-accused. In these circumstances, the impugned order whereby charge was framed against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC calls for no interference. Dismissed. (SABINA) September 9, 2010 JUDGE Anand