Amrik Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This is a petition u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dated 20-4-1995. Vide this order the learned Addl., Sessions Judge has given a prima-facie view that the case of the-petitioners squarely falls within the perview of Section 307 of IPC and accordingly directed the charge to be framed. Santokh Singh son of Udham Singh, resident of village Ghanie Ke Banger is an agriculturist. In the elections of the Block Samiti, Salamat Masih was a candidate for Badal Group. On 16-9-1994 Santokh Singh and Surta Singh went to the Bera of Ajit Singh son of Tara Singh in connection with canvassing for the election. At about 8-00 p.m. they and Ajit Singh were going from the Dera of Ajit Singh towards village Ghanie Ke Banger for canvessing. When they reached on the turning of metalled road accused Amrik Singh empty handed, Malkiat Singh alias Rana with Gandasi, Manjit Singh alias Mana with Dattar, Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha with Dang and Sarabjit Singh were found standing at that turning. Amrik Singh asked his companions to catch hold of Santokh Singh and said that he should not be spared and revenge of previous fight should be taken. Upon this, Malkiat Singh gave Gandasi blow on the forehead of Santokh Singh who fell on the ground. Sukhvinder Singh alias Sukha gave two Dang blows on his neck and right side of the head respectively. Sarabjit Singh gave two Dang blows on his left shoulder and right planks respectively. Manjit Singh gave Dattar blow on his right leg. Santokh Singh raised hue and cry. Ajit Singh and Surta Singh rescued him. The accused are stated to have decamped with their weapons. Later the injured were taken to hospital where they were medically examined. Statement was recorded on 18-9-1994 at 1-45 p.m. Consequently a case under Sections 326, 302, 323, 148, 149, IPC was registred against all the accused.

Later, for some injuries, the patient was kept under observation and after the report of X-rays, injury No. 1 was declared grievous and the doctor opined on 11-11-1994 that injury No. 1 can be dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. On these facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the case of the petitioners does not fall u/s 307, IPC and the order of the learned additional Sessions Judge, qurdaspur, dated 20-4-1995 is liable to be set aside. The petitioners at best could be charged for an offence u/s 306, IPC. He further argued that firstly the medico-legal report has been interpolated by the doctor on a subsequent date and that even in that report it has not been recorded that injury No. 1 is dangerous to life. Injury � No. 1 has been declared as dangerous to life but it has not been recorded in the report that it is sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the cases of State of Punjab v. Kesar Ram 1994 (1) All I Cri L R 562, Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal v. E.S.I. Corporation 1991 (2) RCR 691; and Sudershan Kumar v. The State of Haryana 1983 RCR 379.

In reply to this the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the present revision petition is not maintainable and this Court normally would not interfere in the prima facie view expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge because evidence is still to be recorded.

It has been pronounced in various judgments by the Supreme Court that the High Court should interfere in rare cases where there is a challenge to the order of summoning or framing of charge by the learned trial Court. Unless there is a jurisdictional error or it is apparently so unjust and unfair and contrary to settled principles of law that would cause serious prejudice to the accused, the High Court would normally not interfere in such orders. In the present case the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the prima facie evidence before him has framed a charge u/s 307, IPC. The doctor has declared the injury dangerous to life and he has so done after keeping the injured under observation and the report of the Radiologist. The things which are done in normal course have not to be looked upon with un-necessary suspicion specially when no motive is attached for such work. It is nobody''s case that the doctor had any animosity with the accused or that he was mixed up with the injured party. The doctor has still to come in the witness box and he has to stand to the cross-examination, which may be conducted on behalf of the accused. Framing of charge in the present case u/s 307, IPC cannot be termed as a jurisdictional error causing serious prejudice to the accused. The injured had suffered as many as six injuries and as per the medico-legal report the injured was kept under observation for injuries No. 1, 3 and 5. Injury No. 6 was declared grievous right at the beginning. After perusing the X-ray report the doctor declared the said injury dangerous to life. On the basis of the entire records before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge the trial Court came to the conclusion that prima facie an offence u/s 307, IPC was made out against the accused.

The limitation of this Court while exercising a revisional jurisdiction cannot be ignored. The Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal on fact and that too specially at this initial stage. It is not a case where no offence is made out, but the Court has prima facie come to the conclusion that offence u/s 307, IPC is also made out in addition to other offences.

The Supreme Court in a very recent case titled as Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar 1994 (3) Rec Cri R 123, after discussing some law on the subject, observed as under:-

"Criminal Procedure Code and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisonal Court if so satisfied can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, once charges are framed u/s 240, Criminal Procedure Code the High Court in the revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240, Criminal Procedure Code nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence."

In the case reported as State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, , cautioning the High Courts, the Supreme Court, in quashing matter, observed as under:-

"We are of the considered view that at a stage when the police report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected of the investigating officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings at that stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. We could have set aside the High Court judgment on this ground alone but elaborate argument having been addressed by the learned counsel for the parties we thought it proper to deal with all the aspects of the case."

The evidence relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be opposed to common sense or even the principle of broad probabilities of the case and as such would not call for interference (Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja 1991 (1) RCR 89). In the present case the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable and are of not much help to the petitioners. This Court finds it difficult to interfere with the impugned order within the permissible limits of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

In view of the discussion above this petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.