Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pankaj Sharma vs Surinder Mohan Sharma & Others on 3 March, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.75 OF 2014
DATE OF DECISION : 3rd MARCH, 2014
Pankaj Sharma
.... Petitioner
Versus
Surinder Mohan Sharma & others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
****
Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
SURINDER GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Heard.
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.12.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby the case was sent to the Court of Illaqa Magistrate for trial after framing charge with the observation that the offence under Section 307 and 328 IPC are not made out.
Petitioner-Pankaj Sharma has filed a complaint for offence under Sections 307, 323, 324, 328, 341, 392, 506, 148 and 149 read with 34 IPC with the allegation that on 17.06.2007 at about 7.00pm he was coming from Ludhiana to his house at Phillaur when on the way near Hardy's Wold, G.T. Road the respondents no.1 to 5, who were present there in Esteem car, stopped his motor cycle. On the lalkara of respondent no.1 that "aaj iss wade vakil nu janno maar deo tan ke eh case di CRR NO.75 OF 2014 -2- peharwahi na kar sake" all the respondents started giving beatings to complainant. Respondent no.4 who was armed with sword gave a blow on the head of the complainant with intention to kill him but the petitioner took the blow on his right hand. One passerby, Inderjit Singh tried to save him but he was also threatened. Respondent no.2 who was armed with sword gave a sword blow on the back side on the head of the complainant. Respondent no.1 tide a rope around the neck of the petitioner with the intention to kill him. The other accused gave blows with iron rod on the back side of thigh and other part of the body of the complainant.
In the medical examination following injuries were found on the person of the complainant:
"1. Incised wound about1.25" x .25" on posterior part of head. Scalp deep associated with defuse swelling about 2" x 2". Fresh bleeding present.
2. Spindle shape incised wound skin deep about 1.5" x .5" on ulnar border of right forearm in the upper 1/3rd. Fresh bleeding.
3. Abraded bruise about 1"x1" each on sides of neck and bruise encircling front and side of neck about .25" in breadth.
4. Pink bruise about 2" x .75" on right side of chest.
CRR NO.75 OF 2014 -3-
5. Pink bruise about 3" x.75" on lateral side of left side of chest.
6. Multiple pink bruise of variable sides about 2" x.5" to 4"x.75". Scattered on back with tenderness over 1/s area. Advised x-ray.
7. Pink bruise about 1"x .75" on back of left thigh.
8. Pink bruise about 2.5" x .75" on antero medial aspect of upper part of right thigh.
9. Complain of sprinkling of red chilly powder into eyes over the face followed by redness and pain in the eyes."
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no x-ray examination of injuries no.1 to 6, as advised by the Doctor, was conducted.
On presentation of the challan the case was committed to the Court of Sessions as offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and 308 IPC were disclosed. The learned appellate Court for the reason that no x- ray examination of the injuries was got conducted, did not found any prima facie case for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and under Section 228 Cr.P.C., sent the file to the Illaqa Magistrate for trial.
The perusal of injury no.1 shows that it was a scalp deep incised wound. Fresh bleeding was present. Injury no.3 was on the side of CRR NO.75 OF 2014 -4- neck and there was bruise encircling front and side of the neck about .25"
in breadth. These injuries prima facie reflect that the attack was made to kill the petitioner. At the time of framing the charges it is the intention of the accused which is to be seen. The mere fact that the petitioner has not gone for the x-ray of the injuries, is not sufficient to conclude that no prima facie case is made out under Section 307 IPC.
In the case of Vasant Vithu Jadhav versus State of Maharashtra reported as 2004(9) SCC 31 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt."
CRR NO.75 OF 2014 -5- The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has ignored the injuries on the person of the petitioner and has reached the conclusion that no prima facie case for offence under Section 307 IPC is made out without referring the nature of injury and the allegation leveled by the complainant.
In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable and is set aside and the trial Court is directed to commit the case to the Court of Sessions to proceed further in accordance with law.
3rd March, 2014 (SURINDER GUPTA)
GUPTA)
'raj'
JUDGE
Raj Kumar
2014.03.10 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh