Crl. Rev. No. 886 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 886 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 5,2011 Ram Kishan Kalash ................................... Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation ............... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.3.2011 whereby the application filed by the complainant for framing of alternative charge under Sections 302/120- B/34 IPC has been dismissed. Mr. Hemant Bassi, counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the death of Sunil Kumar (since deceased) took place in the house of accused Mohan Lal. The injuries on the neck were sufficient to cause death and were homicidal. He has referred to the statement made by PW1 M.L.Madan, Eye Crl. Rev. No. 886 of 2011 -2- Specialist Civil Hospital Abohar, in which he has stated that injury No.1 on the person of the deceased does not fall in the category of hesitant cut. He has not ruled out the possibility of the case being suicide. He was not in a position to tell if the possibility of injuries No. 2 and 3 were hesitant cuts could be ruled out or not as he is not a Forensic Expert. As per the medico-legal report (Annexure P3) three injuries were found on the person of Sunil Kumar. DDR No. 18 dated 6.6.2003 (Annexure P4) recorded by ASI Joginder Singh which also shows that there were only three injuries on the body of Sunil Kumar. Sunil Kumar died on 6.6.2003 and post- mortem was conducted on 7.6.2003. Before the post- mortem certain injuries were fabricated on the person of Sunil Kumar so as to give it the colour of suicide. Mr. Bassi has further argued that at the time of framing of charge, the Court has to form an opinion that there is a possibility of conviction of the accused. The Court is not to grant any benefit of doubt as to whether the accused will be convicted under the Section or not. In the present case, the matter was referred to CBI for investigation vide order dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure P5) and a Division Bench of this Court has noticed that injuries No. 4 to 6 have been squeezed in later, an attempt was made to fabricate the record by interpolation. In this Crl. Rev. No. 886 of 2011 -3- background the investigation has been referred to CBI. The CBI on investigation has proceeded to favour Dr. Baldev Raj, Surgical Specialist. Mr. Bassi contends that the CBI while investigating the matter has favoured the version of Dr. Baldev Raj and Dr. Sandeep Kumar Bilhotra. Heard counsel for the petitioner. One glance on the statements given by Dr. Baldev Raj, SMO Incharge, Civil Hospital, Jalalabad, shows that he did not examine the entire body. He had examined the neck and as per the MLR (Ex.PW2/1) injuries No. 2 and 3 were superficial in nature whereas injury No.1 was a deep cut. The injuries were caused by broken piece of glass or sharp edged weapon. As per the statement given by Dr. Sandeep Kumar Bilhotra, MS (Orthopaedics), he had conducted the post- mortem of Sunil Kumar and while recording the MLR he mentioned injuries No. 4 to 6 on the same page by reducing the size of the letters. He has stated in his opinion (Ex.PW/D4) that he could not rule out the possibility of injuries No. 1 to 6 on the hand with the result of broken piece of glass. After going through the medical report and evidence of the Doctors, prima facie case of framing of alternative charge under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC is not made out. In the present case, there were three injuries on Crl. Rev. No. 886 of 2011 -4- the neck of the deceased. Injury No.1 is a deep cut and injuries No. 2 and 3 are tentative/hesitant cuts, which as per the Parikh's Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence Forensic Medicine and Texicology at Chapter 4.15 indicate that such incisions are commonly found in suicidal cut throat and in suicidal cuts on writs. Hesitation cuts are not found in homicidal assaults. It means that unless there are hesitant cuts with incised wounds it cannot be said to be a case of suicide. The hesitant cuts are inflicted by a person intending to commit suicide by cutting instrument. Usually primary cuts are made before gathering sufficient courage to make a final deeper incision. Such incisions are commonly found in suicidal cut throat and in suicidal cuts of wrists. By accepting the medico-legal opinion of the Doctors i.e. Dr. M.L.Madan, Dr. Baldev Raj and Dr. Sandeep Gilhotra, the trial Court has passed the order framing of charge dated 06.4.2010 (Annexure P-7). The application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant for framing of alternative charges has been dismissed vide order dated 22.3.2011 is dismissed. There is no illegality in dismissing the said application. The criminal revision is dismissed. 5.5.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi / vijay asija JUDGE Crl. Rev. No. 886 of 2011 -5-