Jage Ram vs State of Haryana

K.K. Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AAG for the State of Haryana and learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and perused the record.

This criminal revision is directed against order dated 18.5.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani rejecting the application of the revisionistcomplainant Satpal praying for framing a charge under section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in law by holding that no prima facie case for framing charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the injury by means of a knife was caused on the vital part of the body of the injuredcomplainant Satpal. The two injuries on his body were connected with each other and 500 mls. of clotted blood was removed from his body during the operation. The complainant had urged before the learned Magistrate that it was due to the medical aid given to the revisionistinjured in time that saved his life; otherwise the injuries could prove fatal. The further contention of the injuredrevisionist was the site of the injuries, the nature of the weapon used in the occurrence are to be considered while framing charges against the accused and he had placed reliance on the authority reported in Harnek Singh alias Meka and others v. State of Punjab, 1992(3) RCR 422 and another authority reported in Sarvinder Singh @ Chhinda and another v. The State, 1977 Vol. 5 CLR 77.

The learned Magistrate distinguished both the authorities on facts and noticed that there was no opinion that the injuries were dangerous to life and at the state of framing the charge all that is required to see is whether the prima facie case regarding the commission of a certain offence is made out. It may be pointed out that in spite of the fact that the learned Magistrate himself observed regarding the scope of evaluation of the material on record at the stage of framing the charge, substantially departed from the settled law. The settled law is that if the material on record prima facie connects the accused with a particular offence, then the Court has not to see the adequacy of the material on record to warrant a conviction of the accused of that offence and the same is to be considered after the conclusion of the trial. That being so, the learned Magistrate committed an error in law by holding that no offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code was prima facie made out so as to frame a charge thereunder against the accused. The learned Magistrate could not at that stage hold as to the nature of the injuries inflicted on the complainant injured without entering into the merits of the case at the trial.

Resultantly, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application of the revisionist is allowed and the learned Magistrate is directed to frame charge under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and then to proceed in accordance with law regarding the commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions.