Crl. Revision No.2166 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2166 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.08.2009 Sunder and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioners impugning the order dated 14th March, 2009, passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtak, framing charge against them under Sections 323, 325, 307 & 506 IPC. During the course of arguments, however, learned counsel for the petitioners has impugned only framing of charge under Section 307 IPC. He submits that in view of medical opinion, Annexure P-4, offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be said to be made out. He has placed reliance upon judgment rendered as State of Punjab vs. Tara Singh (P&H), 1987 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 184 in support of his contention. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A perusal of the MLR of Bahadur Singh, Annexure P-4 shows that injury No.4 was declared grievous in nature. The injured Crl. Revision No.2166 of 2009 2 appears to have suffered fracture of thigh and a lacerated wound over the forehead. The investigating agency presented the challan under Section 307 IPC apart from other Sections. The Sessions Judge, Rohtak after considering the material accompanying the challan, charged the petitioners under Section 307 IPC also. In view of the fact that charge has been framed under Section 307 IPC and all the relevant material on record including MLR, has been taken into consideration by the Sessions Judge, I do not find it a fit case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this court. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out, is not tenable at this stage. This plea can only be decided on the basis of evidence, which is yet to be led before the court below. The judgment relied upon by the counsel in Tara Singh's case (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, during the course of trial, the Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the statement of the doctor, who appeared as PW1, came to the conclusion that offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out. While dropping the charge under Section 307 IPC, he transferred the case to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial. The said order was impugned before this court. However, the court declined to interfere on the ground that in view of provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C., the court of Additional Sessions Judge was fully competent to drop the charge under Section 307 IPC. In the present case, however, it appears that evidence is yet Crl. Revision No.2166 of 2009 3 to be led before the court below. Learned counsel has only referred to the MLR and contended that in view of the same, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. This argument is not convincing. Merely on the basis of MLR, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion that offence under Section 307 IPC is not attracted to the facts of the case. Even the MLR shows that the injured suffered a fracture as well as lacerated wound on the forehead. I, thus, find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 21, 2009 'rajpal'