CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1503 OF 2005 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 03, 2008 Kulwant Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Kabal Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: None for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr, whereby he has set-aside the order passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur, discharging the respondent-accused herein. The complaint in this case was filed by respondent-Kabal Singh, alleging that there is an old enmity between him and the petitioners due to Gram Panchayat election in Village Karawar. On 28.5.1999, when the complainant alongwith injured persons had assembled in the house of Sarpanch Sukhwinder Singh and were CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1503 OF 2005 :{ 2 }: coming out of the house, the accused party had attacked the complainant-respondent, Kabal Singh and his companions. The petitioners, at that stage, were armed with weapons and the complainant has made specific allegations against each of the petitioner in regard to the role played by them. After pre-summoning evidence, the petitioners were summoned for offences under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Respondent, Kabal Singh, himself appeared as CW3 and examined CW1 Dr.Usha, Ex.Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Balachaur and Dr.Jaswinder Singh, Radiologist as CW2. Amarjit Singh and Harjinder Kaur were examined as CW Nos.4 and 5. After considering the evidence, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate found that sufficient material was not there to frame a charge against the petitioners and accordingly discharged them on 2.2.2002. While discharging the petitioners, the Magistrate mainly relied upon the evidence of Dr.Usha, who stated that Amarjit Singh, was examined by her but did not support the version that he was referred to Raja Hospital, Nawashahr for getting treatment of injuries as urged by the complainant. She rather brought out that Amarjit Singh, injured, was referred to eye specialist and he did not come back to her. CW-1 also opined that the injuries on the body of Kabal Singh were self suffered. Dr.Jaswinder Singh, Radiologist, who had conducted the x-ray on Amarjit Singh did not identify him. Taking these aspects into consideration, the order of discharge was passed. The petitioners filed a revision against the abovesaid order, which was allowed and the order of discharge set-aside. The Additional Sessions Judge found that as per the settled principles of CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1503 OF 2005 :{ 3 }: law, at the time of framing a charge, evidence is not to be evaluated or sifted as is required to be done while deciding the case on merits. The Court has rightly observed that at the time of framing a charge, only prima-facie evidence is to be seen and even suspicion would be enough to frame a charge. It is also observed that the Trial Magistrate has ignored the settled principle of law while passing the order of discharge and has discussed the case as if he was deciding the same on merits at the time of final adjudication. It is also observed that the Trial Court even did not refer to the injuries suffered by Kabal Singh, Harjinder Kaur and Amarjit Singh, which were proved by Dr.Usha. Though Dr.Jaswinder Singh may not have identified Amarjit Singh but he did not dispute that he conducted the x-ray and opined that the injuries on the body of Amarjit Singh were grievous in nature. Identifying an injured person by a doctor after a lapse of time is not to be given importance over the evidence given by the doctors and also of the eye witnesses. It is to be noticed that the Court was considering the evidence and material at the stage of framing charge, which prima-facie material would be enough to frame a charge. Moreover, the oral account given by Amarjit Singh, injured, Harjinder Kaur injured and Kabal Singh could not have been ignored on the ground that doctors had given somewhat different versions, that too not in regard to crux of the matter but on the fringes like where the injured was referred and what had subsequently happened. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nawashahr, accordingly has rightly interfered in the order discharging the petitioners. I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order, which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1503 OF 2005 :{ 4 }: The petition is accordingly dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial from the stage it was left in accordance with law. December 03,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE