Bihari Lal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 2.6.2018 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (for short ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.40/2017 whereby the trial court has

discharged the petitioner from the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., however, sent the matter to the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra for

framing of charge against the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 336 I.P.C.

The petitioner being aggrieved with the discharge of the respondents from the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. has filed this revision

petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that sufficient evidence is available on record against the respondents for framing of charge against

them for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., however, the trial court while taking into consideration the subsequent reports of two

Medical Boards has discharged the accused-respondents from the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. It is contended that even in the

subsequent reports of Medical Boards, it has not been opined that the injury received by the petitioner was not dangerous to life. It is contended that

on the other hand from perusal of reports of those Medical Boards, it is clear that the injury, which is dangerous to life, is outcome of one injury

received by the petitioner on the left parieto occipital region. It is submitted that the second injury was not visible, but it cannot be said that the same

has not been caused by the accused-respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in series of decisions has held that even if there is suspicion

about commission of offence and involvement of accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame charges against the accused-persons. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Sanjay

Choudhary and Others reported in AIR 2009 SC 9.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents have supported the order passed by the court below and has

argued that as prima facie evidence for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is not available on record and rather doubtful

evidence is available on record, the court below has not committed any illegality in discharging the accused-respondents from the offence punishable

under Section 307 I.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and also carefully scrutinized the record of the case.

The incident complained of took place on 9.11.2016 and immediately the petitioner was brought to the Primary Health Centre, Bhadra where Dr. Sunil

Sharma gave him primary treatment and thereafter referred him to higher centre. The petitioner was admitted in private hospital at Sirsa and as per

discharge ticket dated 22.11.2016, he was operated for an injury which was on the Right parieto occipital region. In the discharge ticket prepared by

the private hospital, Sirsa, it is clearly mentioned that there was a fracture on the Right parieto occipital region of the petitioner and for that he was

treated.

On the basis of summary of discharge ticket Dr. Sunil Sharma prepared the injury report wherein he stated that there is only one injury on the scalp of

injured which is on Left parieto occipital region, however, he relying on the summary of discharge ticket of the petitioner, prepared by the private

hospital Sirsa has opined that the said injury of the injured is dangerous to life.Â

It is very strange that though as per the summary of the discharge ticket prepared by the private hospital, Sirsa, the petitioner was treated for an injury

on the Right parieto occipital region, whereas he received only injury on the Left parieto occipital region. It is also to be noticed that on the prayers

made on behalf of the accused-respondents before the concerned Magistrate, the injuries of the petitioner were examined by two Medical Boards, one

was at Hanumangarh and another at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. The reports of both the Medical Boards suggest that as per the discharge ticket of the

private hospital, the injury of the petitioner on the Right parieto occipital region is dangerous to life and there was no injury on the Left parieto occipital

region of the petitioner. It is to be noticed that Dr. Sunil Sharma in his police statement has clearly stated that when he examined the petitioner on

9.11.2016, there was only one injury on the scalp of the petitioner and that was on the left parieto occipital region.

The trial court after taking into consideration the injury report prepared by Dr. Sunil Sharma and the reports of two Medical Boards has come to the

conclusion that there are discrepancies in both the reports and, therefore, it found no case for framing of charge against the accused-respondents for

the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.Â

The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that the State of Haryana issued a notification and directed the police authorities not to rely on

the medico legal reports prepared by private hospitals as there are complaints that in most of the cases the said medico legal reports are fabricated.Â

In the present case, the injury report prepared by Dr. Sunil Sharma is also based on summary of discharge ticket of the injured prepared by a private

hospital of State of Haryana.

Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.Â

So far as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Sanghi Brothers (supra) is concerned, there is no quarrel about the proposition of

law laid down in the said judgment, however, the facts of the above referred case are clearly distinguishable from that of present case and, therefore,

the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner.

With these observations, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.