IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.3052 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 20, 2009 Ajay Kumar and another .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.GS Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The present revision petition is directed against order, dated 3.11.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the petitioners have been charge sheeted under Sections 307/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts of the case are that on the night of 9.6.2009 at 1.00 a.m., Ram Parshad, neighbourer of Baby, the complainant, under the influence of liquor, started abusing as his Rickshaw had turned and also said that the level of the toilet tank, which has been constructed in front of the house of complainant, has been raised high. On being asked, he said that he was abusing complainant. On hearing the hot exchange, sons of the complainant reached there, one son named Manish asked Ram Parshad to go and sleep as he had consumed liquor. Ram Parshad went away from Criminal Revision No.3052 of 2009 -2- there and subsequently, Rajender and Ajay came on the spot and started abusing. Krishan, younger son of the complainant, was caught hold by Ajay, whereas Rajender caught hold the complainant. Then Ajay gave knife blow in the abdomen of Krishan after bringing knife from his room. Due to knife injury, Krishan fell on the ground in an unconscious condition and was removed to Civil Hospital, Karnal. Due to his critical condition, Krishan was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where he is under treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the quarrel took place between Ram Parshad and the sons of the complainant. The petitioners have nothing to do with the said dispute and they are neither the relatives of said Ram Parshad nor, in any manner, connected with the complainant. Therefore, there is no motive with the petitioners to cause injuries, as alleged, by the complainant. Learned counsel has further submitted that on the basis of opinion recorded by the Medical Officer, no case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is contended that as per the opinion rendered by the Department of General Surgery, P.G.I., Chandigarh, the injury suffered by Manish is stated to be grievous, however, there is no opinion to the effect that the said injury was dangerous to life, therefore, no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out. It is also clearly made out from the bare perusal of the complaint as well as the medical evidence that the ingredients of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code are not completely fulfilled. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the record. From the reading of complaint, it is made out that petitioners Criminal Revision No.3052 of 2009 -3- Rajender and Ajay came to the spot. Rajender caught hold of the complainant and, thereafter, Ajay inflicted knife injury in the abdomen of Manish. From the statement of the complainant, it is apparent that accused- petitioners Rajender and Ajay, who were present at the time of occurrence, have caused injury to Manish, son of the complainant. On the basis of investigation, the learned trial Court reached to the conclusion that, prima facie, a case for the offence punishable under Section 307/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners and accordingly, they have been charge-sheeted in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to bring to the notice of this Court any fact on the basis of which it could be stated that the prima facie opinion reached upon by the learned trial Court is not well- founded. As per the statement of eye witness made before the police, the son of the complainant Manish has suffered knife injury in the incident. Learned trial Court after considering all facts and the evidence on record and also after being prima facie satisfied has charge-sheeted the accused-petitioners. Consequently, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) November 20, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No