Criminal Revision No.506 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Revision No.506 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF ORDER : 12.9.2011 Paramjit Singh and others PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sandeep Mann, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. Shri A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the complainant. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioners have questioned the order dated 9.2.2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind by which a charge has been framed against them under Sections 302,323,325,148,149 I.P.C. The primary basis on which the order has been questioned, is the post-mortem report and the opinion on the basis of the histo-pathological report which are on record as Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the aforesaid Criminal Revision No.506 of 2011 -2- documents, the relevant extract of which is given here below to contend that the cause of death as ascertained by the doctors is acute Myo-cardial infarction which means cardiac arrest and thus, the death cannot be attributed to be the result of an incident in which the petitioners have been accused of causing violence and consequent death of the deceased :- “Received a dead body of a male individual wearing a green checkdar shirt and light brown paint. Eyes and mouth closed. A black Tangari around the waist. On occipital region 2 x 4 cm contusion present. On nose 1 x 2 cm abrasion present. On chest 2 x 3 cm abrasion present. In the heart clotted blood present. Alcohol present in the stomach in the time of conducting post-mortem. On Rt.Parietal region 3 x 5 cm contusion present. On occipital region 2 x 1.5 cm. Underlying tissue ecchymosed. ... ... ... Cause of death will be given after receipt of chemical analysis of viscera report and HPE Report. ... ... ... OPINION The cause of death of deceased in this case in my opinion after perusal of Histopathology Report No.887 dt.1.10.10 and PMR No.1078/10 Aug/07/10 is due to acute Myocardial Infarction (cardiac arrest). Sd/- Dr.B.K.Rai 25.1.2011 Department of Forensic Medicine Pt.B.D.Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak (Haryana).” Criminal Revision No.506 of 2011 -3- According to the F.I.R. registered on the basis of the statement of Narender son of Zile Singh, he along with his brothers were watering their fields as per their turn granted to them by the Canal Authorities to use the water-course, when they were ambushed by the petitioners and few other persons who were lying in wait. Ranbir Singh gave a Gandasi blow on the head of Samunder who is the brother of the complainant, while the others gave lalkara that the party belonging to the complainant be taught a lesson. Bhupinder Singh son of Jagat Singh gave a Lathi blow on the head of Samunder Singh, while Parminder son of Sunder Singh who was also having a Gandasa in his hand, gave a Gandasa blow from its reverse side, which landed on his nose. Paramjit Singh gave a Lathi blow on the chest of Samunder and Manjeet Singh also gave a Lathi blow to Samunder which landed on his right hand. Samunder fell down due to the said injuries, while the assailants gave injuries to other persons belonging to the complainant party. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the field of the complainant. The assailants were also given some injuries by the complainant and his brothers as a measure of self-defence. Samunder, the injured, was rushed to the hospital, but succumbed to his injuries on the way before getting any medical treatment. As a result of the cumulative effect of the reading of the F.I.R. and the post-mortem report, as also the opinion of the doctor based on the histo- pathological report, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no offence under Section 302 I.P.C. has been made out and in fact, the charge has been wrongly framed under the said provisions of law, whereas it should have at best, been framed under Section 304 I.P.C. The aforesaid contention has been refuted by the learned counsel for the complainant who has stated that in view of the fact that the deceased was attacked by the petitioners and the fact that the death occurred almost Criminal Revision No.506 of 2011 -4- instantaneously when the deceased was being taken to the hospital, shows the gravity of the offence and at this stage when the Court is to prima facie see whether the material on record is sufficient to warrant framing of such a charge, there cannot be said to be any infirmity having been committed by the learned trial Court. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jagat Paul and others 2007(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 612, wherein it was held as under :- “6. At this juncture it is to be noted that the case of the accused persons before the trial Court was that the offence at the most is one relating to Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. So far as the question of “Cardiac Arrest” is concerned it is only sign or symptom of death. The trial Court had elaborately dealt with these aspects. 7. It was recorded as follows : “Defence counsel next submitted that if at all the offence made out is under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and not under Section 302 I.P.C. In this behalf, much reliance was placed on certificate dated 2.5.1994 lying in the treatment record showing the cause of death as cardiac arrest. On its basis, it was urged that the death was not result of injuries. The argument has no force because cardiac arrest is only sigh or symptom of death. It symbolizes the end of life but cardiac arrest may be due to injuries or due to some other reasons also. In our case post-mortem report clearly establishes that Shish Paul succumbed to his injuries and the cause of death Criminal Revision No.506 of 2011 -5- was injuries suffered by him in the occurrence. In the context it is significant to mention that there was fracture of left fronto-parietal region. The fracture was 'Y' shaped. Separate three pieces were present. The fracture extended upto occipital suture in the posterior and upto orbit in the anterior. Thus it was a big multiple fracture. Even brain matter was injured there was also marginal extra-dural haematoma in the left parietal region. Such serious injuries on vital organ clearly show that the death resulted from the injuries as also categorically opinion by Dr.Subhash Juneja PW-13 who conducted post-mortem examination. It is true that there was no sharp weapon injury, but the force with which the aforesaid head injury was caused clearly shows the intention and knowledge of the accused persons. The other injuries were also on vital organs being on head, face and chest. So there cannot be any doubt about the cause of death being the injuries caused by the accused. In this context, it is also significant to mention that Shish Paul remained unconscious throughout and did not regain consciousness till his death. So it is more than crystal clear that the death was direct result of the injuries and there was no other cause of death. It may be added that heart was found to be healthy and of normal size on X-ray examination and also in autopsy, and so it was not case of sudden heart failure and rather the alleged cardiac arrest was due to Criminal Revision No.506 of 2011 -6- death resulting from injuries.” 8. Therefore, the conclusions of the High Court that the conviction would be under Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. is clearly unsustainable. The trial Court had rightly convicted the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The conviction and the sentence shall stand restored. So far as the respondent - Jagat Paul is concerned the High Court has indicated the reasons for directing his acquittal. It has noted that Jagat Paul had no role to play in the occurrence. It was noted that the earlier quarrel took place between Om Parkash, son of the complainant and Ran alias Ran Singh the real brother of the accused had reasons to attack deceased and Prabhu. Jagat Paul is not related to the co-accused persons. The High Court found that he had no animosity so far as the complainant party is concerned. We find no reason to take a different view and therefore the acquittal of accused Jagat Paul cannot be faulted. The appeal stands dismissed so far as he is concerned.” Reliance has also placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Soma Chakravarty v. State through C.B.I. (2007) 2 S.C.C. (Cri.) 514, wherein it was held as under :- “The settled legal position is that if on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond Criminal Revision No.506 of 2011 -7- reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. ... ... ... Charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the court must come to a prima facie finding that there exist some materials therefor. Suspicion alone, without anything more, cannot form the basis therefor or held to be sufficient for framing charge.” I have considered the rival contentions raised before me. The parameters of the controversy are in very narrow confines whether the charge has been framed appropriately or not. The factors which the Court is required to look into at the time of framing of the charge, have been eloquently set out in numerous pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the issue is thus no longer res- integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni 2000(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 452, observed as follows :- “A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 173, 228, 227 - Framing of charge - Material to be taken into consideration at the time of framing of charge :- Criminal Revision No.506 of 2011 -8- (i) Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused - Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. (ii) Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view of finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence. (iii) Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or broad probabilities of the case. 1990 (4) SCC 76. (iv) Sessions Judge is not expected to hold a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the case at the stage of framing charges by weighing the evidence as if he was conducting the trial. 1996(3) R.C.R. (Cri.) 411 (SC). (v) If the evidence which the prosecution possesses to prove the guilt, even if fully accepted without rebuttal, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence, then the charge can be quashed.” The facts of the case as given out in the F.I.R. leading to the occurrence in which the deceased has lost his life, reveal an attack which was pre- meditative, as according to the accusations, the petitioners and his co-accused Criminal Revision No.506 of 2011 -9- were lying in wait to ambush the deceased and his brothers. The post-mortem report reveals the number of injuries and the presence of clotted blood in the heart. It also shows the presence of alcohol in the stomach and a contusion on the right parietal region 3 x 5 cm in dimension, and on the occipital region, a contusion measuring 2 x 1.5 cm with underlying tissue ecchymosed. At this stage, when there are injuries on the head which almost correspond to the version in the F.I.R., the petitioners cannot claim that the histo-pathological report and the opinion given on the basis of the same referring to the cause of death as an acute myo- cardial infarction was necessarily on account of an ailment suggestive of a natural death. Myo-cardial infarction could also be a result of the injuries and the shock emanating from the incident and therefore, it would be absolutely un-wise to dilute the charge when the entire sequence of events points to a grave suspicion against the petitioners having caused the death of the deceased in a pre-meditative attack. The learned trial Court was thus, right in framing the charge against the petitioners under Section 302 I.P.C. The contentions of the petitioners are obviously to be tested in a greater detail upon availability of more material in the shape of testimony of experts on the issue. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) September 12, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO