Criminal Revision No. 1784 of 2006 1 Ram Karan Versus State of Haryana and others Present: Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. ***** The petitioner is a complainant. In his complaint the FIR No. 55 dated 30.3.2005 was registered against the respondent under Sections 148, 149, 323, 304 IPC at police station Naraingarh. After investigation, the challan was presented for the said offences. At the time of framing of a charge, Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ambala found that the charge under Section 304 IPC is not made out and only offence under Section 323 IPC would be revealed against the respondent-accused. He accordingly has remanded the case back for trial to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this revision petition. The facts, in brief, are that Ram Karan, complainant is son of Bishni Devi who has filed this complaint alleging that the respondent alongwith others had come to the scene carrying lathies, dandas and gandasis and started beating one Jogindro Devi. While this was going on, deceased, Bishni Devi came there on hearing the noise. One Jaipal inflicting fist blows in her stomach, other ladies also gave fist blows to her. When the other persons came to the spot, the respondent ran away from the scene. Bishni Devi was Criminal Revision No. 1784 of 2006 2 taken to private hospital at Naraingarh but was sent back after giving some medicines. She died at her residence on 30.3.2005 at 7.00 p.m. Deceased was 70 years old lady. The FIR was, accordingly, registered for the offences as aforementioned. At the time of framing of charge, the defence pleaded that offence under Section 304 IPC would not be made out. It was pleaded that at the most offence under Section 323 IPC is revealed. Additional Sessions Judge referred to number of precedents and ultimately came to the conclusion that only charge under Section 323 IPC is made out. He, thus, remanded the case back for trial to Chief Judicial Magistrate. This order is under challenge before the Court. It is a case where allegation is that respondents-accused gave fist blows in the abdomen of the deceased. It is thus pleaded that the respondents-accused are to be attributed a knowledge that death could be the likely result and thus they could be held guilty under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and not merely under Section 323 IPC. A perusal of the material on record would show that Bishni Devi, deceased and Jogindero Devi had sustained simple injuries. Bishni Devi had received one injury on her person as is shown in her PMR and it was one superficial abrasion ¾ cms x ¼ cms on her left foot. It was thus submitted that this injury could not be termed as grievous in nature and certainly not such that it could be dangerous to her life. It may also require notice that Bishni Devi was not present when this incident took place. Obviously the respondents had no intention to give and cause any injury or harm to Bishni Devi. Even as per the case of prosecution Bishni Devi was Criminal Revision No. 1784 of 2006 3 attracted to the scene on hearing the noise and it is at that stage that she was allegedly given one fist blow on her stomach. The respondent-accused statedly were armed with number of weapons like lathies and gandasis but no one ever gave any injury to deceased Bishni Devi . It appears that she had also not suffered any serious injury for which she could be given a treatment. She was taken to a private hospital only where she was not even admitted and was sent back returned to her residence, after prescription of certain medicines. The doctor attending on to Bishni Devi apparently did not record any history and even did not find any injury on her person. Post mortem would also not support the fact that Bishni Devi had died due to injury on her person. No doubt while framing a charge what is required to be seen is a prima facie evidence and suspicion some lines may be enough to frame a charge. However, the evidence as collected would not be enough to even prima facie reveal if the death in this case was either intended or act alleged was with the knowledge that it would lead to death or that death may be a likely result or that there was such injury caused which infact led to her death. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala has taken pains to refer large number of precedents of similar nature, where charge under Section 304 was not framed. While admitting this revision petition, the trial Court was directed to continue with the proceedings, however, the Court was not to pass a final order. Counsel for the respondents points out that the case is fixed for PW evidence and is continuing. Criminal Revision No. 1784 of 2006 4 No infirmity could be pointed out in the view taken by the Sessions Court while holding that the charge under Section 304 IPC is not made out. The case will not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The present revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. December 19, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE