Criminal Revision No. 1932 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No. 1932 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.9.2009. Baljinder Singh @ Sonu ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Sh. C.L. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J. **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated February 26, 2009 whereby charge against the petitioner has been framed under Section 302 IPC. The petitioner in the present petition is accused in FIR No. 68 dated 28.3.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case in hand Harmesh Kaur died on account of kick blow in the stomach which is attributed to the petitioner. The deceased was real Aunt (Tai) of the petitioner. On account of the injuries suffered initially FIR under Section 323 IPC was registered. The deceased remained under treatment in hospital for 16 days. On account of her death, the offence was altered and the challan was presented against the petitioner under Section 304 Part II IPC. However, later on considering the opinion of the Board of Doctors, the Court framed charge against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC. The submission is that as it is a case of sudden fight, the framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC cannot possibly be made out as there was no intention to kill the deceased. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submission made. It was merely on the basis of the material before the Court below available at the time of framing of charge, which was considered Criminal Revision No. 1932 of 2009 (O&M) 2 and order framing charge against the petitioner was passed. However, the real intent and the offence for which the petitioner is to be punished is to be considered by the Court ultimately after the evidence of the prosecution and defence is led. In any case the trial for the offence under section 304 Part II or 302 IPC is to be conducted by the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition at this stage and the same is dismissed. As there is no merit in the present petition, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 24.9.2009 JUDGE Reema