Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash @ Lala vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 December, 2013
Author: Amol Rattan Singh
Bench: Amol Rattan Singh
Crl. Revision No.1172 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No.1172 of 2013
Date of Decision: 21.12.2013
Subhash @ Lala ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present:- Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, AAG, Haryana
Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate
for the complainant-respondent No.2.
***
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
This revision petition, filed by one Subhash @ Lala, seeks the setting aside of the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dated 27.02.2013, by which a charge for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC has been framed against the petitioner.
2. The background of the case is that an FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant, one Vijay Kumar, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452 and 307 IPC, though in the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the trial Court, the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 307 IPC, were found to have been not made out and, instead of Section 307 IPC, offences punishable under Sections 279/337 IPC were found to have been made out. However, the learned trial Court came to a prima facie finding, that an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was also made out and, as Chander Vikas 2014.01.14 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.1172 of 2013 -2- such, framed a charge in respect of the same, against the petitioner alone.
As regards the other offences, they were found to have been made out against the co-accused of the petitioner, but not against the petitioner himself.
The version given by the complainant in the FIR, was that in the month of June, 2010, his wife, Sunita Sharma, had contested an election for the post of 'Sarpanch', against one Harbhajan, who was an ex-Sarpanch, in which election the complainants' wife, Sunita Sharma, was defeated.
Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have made an application for checking of the record of the Gram Panchayat, which was under consideration of the authorities concerned and on account of the complaint made, the opposite party, consisting of the above mentioned Harbhajan, his son Surinder and Satish @ Bhola, one Ram Chander, Babu Lal, and three/four more persons, are stated to have entered the house of the complainant and were exhorted by Harbhajan to teach the complainant a lesson, for getting the record of the Panchayat checked.
Thereafter, one of the sons of Harbhajan, is said to have given a lathi blow on the wrist of the complainant and other co-accused allegedly gave him fist and leg blows.
Thereafter, when the wife of the complainant came to rescue him, she was also given fist and leg blows and when she cried out for help and ran out of the house, then the petitioner, Subhash @ Lala, is stated to have come, driving a Swift car at a high speed, with Chander Vikas 2014.01.14 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.1172 of 2013 -3- three/four persons sitting along with him, allegedly carrying country made pistols in their hands.
Harbhajan is again stated to have exhorted the petitioner to kill the complainants' wife and, thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have hit the car against her, after which one of the accused is stated to have said that she had died, after which everyone ran away.
Vide an earlier order of a coordinate Bench of this Court, the complainant was impleaded as a party and upon having been served and duly represented, the matter was argued by Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the complainant, along with learned State counsel.
Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, contended that a perusal of the Medico Legal Report shows that the injury caused on the person of Sunita Rani, did not, in any case, make out an offence punishable under Section 307, inasmuch as, there are simple injuries to the extent of tenderness in the hip and in the pelvic region, though an X-ray had been advised.
In response, Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, placed on record the subsequent medico legal reports obtained from the Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, the first one having been written out by the local Government Hospital, at Pataudi.
The report of the Safdarjang Hospital shows that there was a fracture on the pelvis with severe tenderness in the lower abdomen, with some free fluid in the peritoneal cavity. An urgent Ultrasound of the whole abdomen was also advised, though the result of the same was Chander Vikas 2014.01.14 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.1172 of 2013 -4- not on the record. However, the pubic ramii is shown to be fractured, in the pelvic area.
Mr. Raj Mohan Singh has, therefore, contended that, in view of the above, it was very obvious that the attempt of the petitioner, while hitting Sunita Rani with the car, was obviously to cause her death and it was only when she had fallen down and the accused thought that she had died, that they ran away from the spot.
The contention, therefore, is that the charge framed against the petitioner is very much maintainable and that his trial should be conducted in respect of the said charge, before the trial Court.
Per contra, Mr. Sarfraj Hussain contended that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out.
His contention is that, as recorded in the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the car accidently hit Sunita Rani when she rushed out of the house into the street and, as such, the recommendation that a charge be framed under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was correctly made in the report submitted by the police, under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
He has further contended that the occurrence took place at 10.30 p.m allegedly, and she went to the hospital at 10.00 a.m. on the next day. His further contention was that even the police verification was that the wind screen was broken, which was on account of the fact that the wind screen was hit by a lathi by the complainant and, thereafter, the accident took place due to the wind screen having been broken. Thus, there was no intention to run over and cause her death.
He, therefore, sought quashing of the order framing a charge under Section 307 IPC.
Chander Vikas2014.01.14 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.1172 of 2013 -5-
He further contended that if, after evidence is led with respect to the charges recommended to be framed by the police, at that stage also it is felt by the trial Court that an offence under Section 307 is made out, charge can be amended at that stage too.
He has also relied upon some judgments of coordinate Benches of this Court, as also one of the Bombay High Court, to submit that the intention to kill must be clearly made out, before a charge under Section 307 IPC can be framed.
Though all the judgments relied upon by him were not petitions filed against the order of charge, but criminal appeals against the order of conviction, obviously, the intention is to show that no offence under Section 307 IPC can be made out in the present case.
As per the first judgment in Fakkar Singh alias Jaila Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Crl.) 797, it was a case where the accused had shot the victim with a pistol below the knee. Hence, it was held that if there had been an intention to cause death, the accused would have fired on the chest or any other vital part and not below the knee. Obviously, this judgment is not applicable in this case.
The second case, of the Bombay High Court, in Prakash Chandrappa Channur Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 Crl. Law Journal 1085, is also with regard to the size of the blade of the knife used in the offence as a weapon and the accused having run away after inflicting two wounds, wherein it was held that neither the size of the blade, nor the manner in which the knife blows were given, indicated any intention to cause the death of the victim.
Chander Vikas 2014.01.14 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.1172 of 2013 -6-
To similar effect are the other two judgments cited by Mr. Sarfraj Hussain.
Obviously, each case has to be seen on its own circumstances, to determine as to whether a charge under Section 307 IPC would be, prima facie, made out or not and, no straight jacket formula can exist for such situations.
In the present case, the complainant version is that on exhortation by the main accused, i.e. Harbhajan, the petitioner hit the car against the wife of the complainant, thus intending to kill her and, on seeing her fallen, left her there, presuming her to have died. The version of the accused, on the other hand, as enumerated above, is that while shouting for help, Sunita Rani came rushing out of the house, (where the incident, initially, is stated to have taken place, though not so found by the police), and upon her entry on to the road in front of the house, the car hit her after the complainant allegedly hit the wind screen of the car, with a 'lathi'.
Of course, there is a contradiction in the version given by the accused too, to the extent as to whether the car hit her simply on account of her having run out onto the road, or on account of the lathi having hit the wind screen, and therefore, on a natural swerve by the driver, i.e the petitioner, the car hit her.
As regards the former version, since Section 452 IPC was removed as an offence in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. itself, on the ground that the fight did not take place inside the house, but in the street itself, obviously, at this stage, unless evidence to the contrary is led in the trial Court, it cannot be said that she ran out of the house Chander Vikas 2014.01.14 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.1172 of 2013 -7- where the occurrence was taking place, since the occurrence, even as per the police version, had taken place on the street itself.
Of course, Mr. Raj Mohan Singhs', contention in this regard, has been that the fight had actually taken place inside the house of the complainant, where all the accused entered, in order to teach the complainant a lesson for having made a complaint with regard to the Panchayat record, and it was only shielding by the police which led to removal of the offence under Section 452 IPC.
Obviously, the entire occurrence, would be seen by the trial Court, as per evidence led before it.
Mr. Raj Mohan Singh further draws attention to the MLRs written out in respect of others on the complainants' side, to show that a total of 7 injuries were inflicted upon the complainant himself. Additionally, another 8 injuries are stated to have been received by one Anil Kumar and 4 injuries by one Parveen.
However, most of the injuries seen in the MLRs are only tenderness etc./swellings, though in the case of Vijay Kumar, it is stated in the affidavit filed by the complainant, that after the X-ray, the medical report showed that the complainants' elbow had also been fractured.
Mr. Raj Mohan Singh has further argued that the fracture of the pubic ramii has rendered Sunita Ran virtually unable to walk even at this stage, due to the severe pain in the area and, as such, the intention of the petitioner, to actually cause her death by hitting the car against her, is very clear.
Having considered the entire matter in detail, it is difficult to state at this stage, whether there was actually any intention to kill her Chander Vikas 2014.01.14 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.1172 of 2013 -8- or not, however, keeping the entire background of the matter in view, especially the fact that she was the candidate against the prime accused, I am not inclined to interfere with the charge framed by the trial Court. Whether or not such charge is eventually sustainable, can be determined only as per the evidence led before the trial Court and that Courts' conclusion on the basis of the same.
Consequently, this petition is dismissed and the interim order, directing the trial Court to not proceed further with the matter, till pronouncement of this judgment, is vacated.
21.12.2013 (Amol Rattan Singh)
vcgarg Judge
Chander Vikas
2014.01.14 16:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh