Billu @ Balram vs State of Punjab and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, in the wake of complaint of petitioner-complainant Billu alias Balram son of Gopi Ram (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against the accused/private respondents Nos. 2 to 6, vide FIR No. 11 dated 13.4.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss. 148, 307, 323, 324, 326 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Bahavwala, District Ferozepur. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) against the private respondents-accused to face the trial of the indicated offences. Consequently, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial against the respondents-accused.

Taking into consideration the final police report and material/evidence annexed therewith, the trial Court came to the conclusion that since there was no intention to attempt to murder, so, the accused were liable to be charge-sheeted only for the commission of offences punishable u/ss. 148, 326, 324 & 323 read with section 149 IPC triable by the Court of Magistrate. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for proceeding against the accused in accordance with law, by means of impugned order dated 1.6.2011 by the Sessions Judge.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-complainant has preferred the present criminal revision petition to quash the impugned order, invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr. P.C.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.

Ex facie the argument of learned counsel for petitioner that since prima-facie, there was sufficient material/evidence on record to frame charge u/s. 307 IPC, so, the Sessions Judge has committed a legal mistake not to frame the charge u/s. 307 IPC against the respondents-accused and to remand the case back to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the record, that earlier, there was no dispute between the parties. Moreover, injuries No. 1 and 4 on the person of petitioner-complainant caused with blunt weapon, were superficial in nature. Injury No. 2, which was declared grievous, is on the little finger. Similarly, injury No. 3 was declared to be simple in nature as per the Radiologist. Therefore, to me, the requisite intention to attempt to murder of complainant by the respondents-accused is miserably lacking in this case. The Sessions Judge has correctly considered the matter, did not frame the charge u/s. 307 IPC and remitted the case back to the court of CJM for trial u/ss. 148, 326, 324 & 323 read with section 149 IPC, vide impugned order dated 1.6.2011, the operative part of which is as under:-

The only part attributed to Sanjay Kumar is exhorting his co-accused to finish the complainant Sanjay Kumar never fired from his rifle. As per the medical examination of Bittu, injury No. 1 is missing of right lower first incisor which is the result of a blunt weapon. Injury No. 2 is missing of distal phalanx of left little finger which is declared to be grievous in nature. Injury No. 3 incised wound on left ring finger was also declared to be simple in nature after the opinion of radiologist. Injury No. 4 as has already been re-produced above was declared to be simple in the MLR itself which is abrasion around the front and lateral aspect of the neck. The doctor in the present case has not declared any of the injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The grievous injury is not on the vital part of the body and it is only on the little finger of left hand. With regard to injury No. 4, the investigating officer sought the opinion of the doctor by asking if the said injury could become the cause of stoppage of breath of the victim and because of which, it could cause danger to his life or not and the opinion of the doctor is that the possibility cannot be ruled out. The doctor here never gave any such opinion that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is no such opinion of the doctor that because of the putting of rope in the neck of the victim, he found some difficulty in breathing. Even this is not the plea of the complainant that he felt some difficulty in breathing because of one of the accused having put a rope in his neck. In Sarita''s case (Supra) despite the fact that injury was inflicted on neck with an axe, which was incised wound of 2-1/2 Cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on the left side of neck, transversally on middle 1/3rd of neck, the Court came to the conclusion that no offence u/s 307 IPC is made out. The injury in the present case namely injury No. 4 is nothing but an abrasion and not incised or lacerated wound. I find myself unable to accept the submission of the learned PP for the State that keeping in view the nature of injury No. 4, a prima facie case is made out to frame charge u/s 307 IPC. So far as the intention of the accused is concerned, the assailants were stated to be five in number. The victim did not receive any serious injury on any vital part of his body. Despite one of the assailants being armed with gun, the same was not used. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances, it is difficult to presume prima facie that the assailants intended to cause the death of victim Billu. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against the accused for framing of charge u/s 307 IPC. The accused are to be charge sheeted for offence u/s 326, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC which are prima facie made out. These offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Therefore, this case is sent back to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for proceeding against the accused in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any material/ground, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned order.

Meaning thereby, the Sessions Judge has examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this regard. Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner-complainant, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.