IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.169 of 2004 Date of decision: 18.7.2008 Harish Chander and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Mr. Harish Behl, Advocate. For respondent : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. The revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.7.2004 of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, whereby revision petitioner Harish Chander has been charged with offences, under Sections 452 read with Section 34, 307, Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and revision petitioners Archna and Gopal Singh with offences under Sections 452 read with Section 34, 307 read with Section 34 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Case was registered against the revision petitioners on the basis of statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, made by Sunil Kumar to Police Officer on 20.2.2001. As per that statement, when Sunil Kumar returned from the fields with a load of hay, he saw revision petitioner Harish Chander and his father Gopal Singh Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… (also revision petitioner, but now dead) damaging the wall of their kitchen and that when he was about to enter his kitchen, revision petitioner Harish Chander fired a gun shot at him, which hit him on his back and he fell on the spot. During the course of investigation, it was found that before the aforesaid incident in which Sunil Kumar sustained gun shot injury, Gopal Singh, his son Harish Chander and daughter Archana, went to the house of Sunil Kumar, where his mother Dhani Devi was present and they assaulted her and one of them, namely Gopal Singh, dealt Danda blows to her as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries in the form of fractures. 4. Challan was filed in the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate, on completion of investigation. Case was committed to Sessions Court. Learned sessions Judge charged the revision petitioners as aforesaid. Revision petitioners are aggrieved by the framing of charge against them. 5. Two submissions were made by learned counsel representing the revision petitioners. First is that Archana’s name does not figure in the FIR. It is true that name of Archana is not in the FIR. It has already been noticed, here-in-above, that the FIR was lodged by Sunil Kumar, who had been fired at through a gun, by Harish Chander, revision petitioner. Said Sunil Kumar was not at home, when the earlier incident of house-trespass and causing grievous injuries to Dhani Devi, mother of Sunil Kumar, had taken place. Before he could enter the house, he was fired at and, therefore, even at the time of lodging of the FIR he was not aware of the earlier incident. It is for this reason that in the FIR, which was registered on the basis of statement of said Sunil Kumar, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not only Archana’s name is not there but also there is no reference to the earlier incident. Hence, the first submission is rejected. …3… 6. Next submission made on behalf of the revision petitioners is that according to the report of the ballistic expert, gun does not stand connected with the empty cartridge, recovered during the investigation of the case. Accusation regarding firing of gun shot is to be proved by the prosecution not only by reference to the report of ballistic expert, but also by leading direct evidence, and therefore, at this stage merely on the basis of report of the ballistic expert it cannot be said that no gun shot was fired, particularly when there is specific allegation in the form of statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of Sunil Kumar and other witnesses that a gun shot was fired and medical report indicates that Sunil Kumar sustained gun shot injuries. 7. For the foregoing reasons, revision petition is dismissed. July 18, 2008 (BC) ( Surjit Singh ) Judge