IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Revision No. 59 of 2009. Judgment reserved on : 31.8.2009. Date of decision: September 7, 2009. Kamal Kishore alias Bittu …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S.Guleria , Advocate. For the Respondent. Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge This revision is directed against the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chamba framing charge against the petitioner in Sessions trial No. 41 of 2008 under Sections 307, 341, 323, 325, 451 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of FIR No. 46 dated 17.5.2007 registered at Police Station, Tisa, the petitioner is facing trial in Sessions Trial No.41 of 2008 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 Chamba. The petitioner has assailed the framing of charge against the petitioner particularly under Section 307 IPC on the ground that on the basis of the material on record no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioner and the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chamba has erred in framing the charge against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC. 3. Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the M.L.C. of Jitender Singh and has submitted that as per the final opinion of the doctor the injuries sustained on the body of the victim were not sufficient to cause the death. It has been submitted that the doctor has further given opinion that head injury is not sufficient to cause the death without any intervention. The charge is to be framed on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency and is before the Court at the time of framing of the charge. 4. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned order. He has submitted that the trial is already at advance stage, till now 17 witnesses have already examined by the prosecution and only a few witnesses of prosecution are left for examination. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the trial Court has passed speaking order at the time of framing of the charge. The learned Additional Sessions 3 Judge (Fast Track Court) is likely to decide the main matter on merits very shortly. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), has considered the opinion of the doctor and has come to the conclusion that there is enough material on record for framing charge under Section 307 IPC. In order to attract Section 307 IPC an act with intention or knowledge, which can cause death is sufficient. The resultant injury of the act is not of much significance. It is not necessary that injury should be of such nature which can cause death. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Balram Bama Patil and others AIR 1983 S.C. 305, it has been held that it is not necessary that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The fact that only minor injuries resulted from the act is not relevant to attract Section 307 IPC. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that MLC of the injured does not indicate injury of such nature which was sufficient to cause death and, therefore, Section 307 IPC is not attracted is rejected. 7. The trial is at advance stage, already 17 witnesses of the prosecution have been examined. According to learned Additional Advocate General only about four witnesses are left for examination from the side of the prosecution. In other words, the trial is likely to be over within short time. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference on the 4 ground that the Court below has erred in framing the charge under Section 307 IPC etc. against the petitioner. 8. No other point was urged. 9. The result of the above discussion, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The observations made in the order are for disposal of this revision and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chamba on 29.9.2009. The Registry is directed to send the record of the trial Court immediately so as to reach before the date fixed. September 7, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.