IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.89 of 2001 Date of decision: 13th August, 2008 Joginder Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Sheoran, Advocate for Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by Joginder Singh son of Om Parkash and Tejinder Singh son of Om Parkash assailing the order dated 27th November, 2000 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, who had come to the conclusion that petitioners be charged for offence under Section 307 IPC. Case of the prosecution is that Joginder Singh was nursing a grudge against injured Suresh Kumar as he had asked him to remove the garbage. On 4th August, 1998, Joginder Singh along with his brothers Tejinder Singh and Kewal Krishan caught hold of complainant. Joginder Singh inflicted the ballam blow on the right side of stomach of the complainant and inflicted another blow on his left hand with ballam as a lathiwise. Other two co-accused Tejinder and Kewal Krishan also attracted at the spot and inflicted injuries to the complainant – Suresh Kumar. On 9th CRR 89 of 2001 November, 1998, doctor opined injury No.1 to be dangerous to life after the review of the record of PGIMS, Rohtak. Counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submission. Firstly, he submits that in a detailed discussion in the order framing charge, the Court had already pronounced that offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Secondly, it has been stated that opinion of the doctor is at a highly belated stage, therefore, no offence under Section 307 IPC is attracted. I am afraid, both these contentions of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Anything stated in the order framing charge is only for deciding at that stage what charge is to be framed. However, as an abundant caution, to settle the apprehension of the petitioner, it is ordered that anything said therein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court, needless to say, will arrive at a conclusion, after taking into consideration the evidence led before the Court. Whether opinion given on 9th November, 1998 after a delay of one month and seven days is sufficient to oust the opinion of the doctor, will always be subject matter of evidence. Petitioners will get an opportunity to cross-examine the doctor and erode his credibility as to why the delay has occurred. Therefore, for this, a revisional Court cannot tread into the realm of appreciation as desired by the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE 13th August, 2008 rps 2