IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3057 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.11.2010 Jagdev Singh and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr. D.S.Malwai, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 28.9.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which charge has been framed against the petitioners under Section 307 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per statement of petitioner No.2 Lakha Singh, FIR No.70 dated 20.7.2007 under Sections 307/323/326/148/149 IPC was registered against Gurpreet Singh and others and as a counter blast to that FIR, Partap Singh got recorded his statement on 20th July, 2007. As per statement of Partap Singh, it is nowhere mentioned that the injury was caused to him or to any other person from his side and there was no intention to kill. As per opinion of the doctor, the injury on the person of Partap Singh was declared as simple and challan under Section 325 IPC was presented. During trial, the prosecution Crl. Revision No. 3057 of 2010 [2] examined Dr.Parminder Singh as PW-3 who deposed that if the injury on the person of Partap Singh had been left untreated, it would have proved dangerous to his life. On the statement made by the doctor, an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for framing of charge under Section 307 IPC and accordingly, charge under Section 307 IPC was framed. Learned counsel further submits that it is due to wrong interpretation of the statement of the doctor, that injury could be treated to be dangerous to life in absence of any medical aid, the charge has been framed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the impugned order. In this case, initially charge was framed under Sections 325/323/148/149 IPC as injuries on the person of the injured were declared as simple. After framing of charge, prosecution examined Dr.Parminder Singh as PW-3 who had medico-legally-examined Partap Singh and found two injuries on his person. In the cross- examination, the injury on the person of Partap Singh was declared as simple on the basis of X-ray Report but as per opinion of the doctor, the said injury, if left untreated, could have been dangerous to life and accordingly, charge was framed under Section 307 IPC. For framing of charge under Section 307 IPC, the nature of injury is not to be seen as the intention of the person to whom the injury has been attributed is to be seen. Since the injury was given with Gandasa on the head of Pardeep Singh, the intention was not to cause simple injury and rather it could have been dangerous to life also if proper treatment was not given at the proper time. As per Crl. Revision No. 3057 of 2010 [3] Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted but it is essential that such bodily injury was capable of causing death. If the injury is caused with such an intention or knowledge and, if by that act caused death, then it would be a case under Section 307 IPC. In the present case also, the injury was caused on the head with gandasa which itself shows that intention was not to cause simple injury but to cause such an injury which could have caused death even. Therefore, prima facie charge under Section 307 IPC was framed. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE November 17, 2010. raghav