Parshotam Lal vs Shingara Ram

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 26.8.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawanshahar.

The revisionist is the complainant who had filed the complaint, under Sections 307/352/323/504/506/34, Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code''). The complaint was filed on the allegations that on 12.9.1993 at 10 A.M. in the area of Rohon near Gurdwara, the accusedrespondents had assaulted the complainant with fist blows and pulled him from his hair. The accusedrespondent No. 1 Shingara Ram wrapped his waist belt around the neck of the complainant and started dragging him. The complainant led preliminary evidence. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the evidence led by the complainant, ordered Shingara Ram and Smt. Bimla wife of Shingara Ram to be summoned under Sections 352/323/34 of the Code by order dated 5.3.1994. The accused were tried as a summons case and notice of accusation under Sections 352/323 read with Sections 34 of the Code was served upon the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation and they were tried.

At the trial, the complainant Parshotam Lal appeared as P.W. 1 and examined Sardara Singh (P.W. 2), Dr. Jugraj Singh (P.W. 3) and Piara Singh (P.W. 4). The complainant closed his evidence and the statements of the accused were to be recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code when the learned counsel for the complainant argued before the learned Magistrate that from the evidence led by the complainant, offence under Section 307 of the Code was also made out and, as such, the accused should be committed for trial to the Court of Sessions. The primary contention in this regard before the learned Magistrate was that the statement of the complainant showed that the accused Shingara Ram had wrapped the waist belt around the neck of the complainant and dragged him, as a result of which he felt great difficulty in breathing and, thus, it amounted to an attempt to commit his murder an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Code. Reference was made to the evidence of Dr. Jugraj Singh (P.W. 3), who had deposed that injury No. 1 could be caused in ordinary course of nature if sufficient pressure with consistent force is applied for fourfive minutes continuously. The learned Magistrate heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned counsel for the accused and repelled the submission of the complainant by holding that the evidence on record did not make out even prima facie an offence under Section 307 of the Code and resultantly, the prayer of the complainant was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 26.8.1995, the complainant has filed this revision.

Notice of the revision was issued to the respondents, who put in appearance through counsel and contested the revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, after taking into consideration injury No. 1 found on the person of the complainant, held that injury No. 1 is undoubtedly on the vital part of the body being present around the neck on the interior and lateral sides in the middle and in the shape of two parallel bruises of 13 x 1 cms, reddish in colour, but the same could not be said to be dangerous to life. He referred to the medical evidence on record wherein the doctor deposed that he had not advised Xray because in his opinion injury No. 1 was simple in nature. He also considered the statement of the doctor to the effect that a man could easily cry and make noise in the case of such type of injury as of injury No. 1. The learned Magistrate held that in view of the evidence on record the offence under Section 307 of the Code cannot be said to have been made out by any stretch of imagination. It is relevant to note that the complainant did not challenge the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate against the respondent Shingara Ram and his wife Bimla. The complainant had filed the complaint under Section 307 of the Code and it was on the basis of evidence led prior to the order of summoning that the said accused were summoned. If the complainant was aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the accused only under Sections 352/323/34 of the Code and not under Section 307 of the Code, he could agitate the matter by filing a revision against the order. Not only this, when the notice of accusation was served on the accused under Section 352/323/34 of the Code, the complainant did not agitate the matter by filing a revision and led evidence in support of the offences mentioned in the notice of accusation. Even, after noticing the nature of injury No. 1 which has been mentioned above and perusing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate after discussing the evidence led before him, there is no room for doubt that offence of Section 307 of the Code was not made out. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that had the force been applied more, the complainant could be strangulated, is of no avail to establish by the material on record that such a force had been applied and, therefore, there was an attempt to commit murder. Where a simple injury had been found on the vital part of the body and in the opinion of the doctor such an injury was not dangerous to life, offence under Section 307 of the Code would not be made out.

In view of what has been discussed above, this revision is devoid of any substance and is hereby dismissed.

Revision dismissed.