1. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No. 2, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 02/2023 pertaining to FIR No. 129/2021 of Police Station Muklawa, District Sriganganagar whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 325/34, 447/34 & 341 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are cross cases between the parties and injured Subhash and Ramchander each received only two injuries in all. According to injury report of Ramchander, he received injury on his left knee which is non-vital part of his body and another one is simple in nature. As per injury report of Subhash, he received two injuries out of which, injury No. 1 is found to be grievous in nature that is on skull and temporal region. Counsel further argued that there was free fight between the parties and there was no repetition of blows, therefore, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Counsel submitted that previously the doctor opined that none of the injuries were dangerous to life, later on, Doctor opined that injury No. 1 is dangerous to life, therefore, charge for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC may be set aside against the petitioners.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the injuries were received on the skull of one of the injured, which was found to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life. The learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has rightly framed the charges which does not call for any interference.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as carefully gone through the material available on record.
5. While framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC, the Court has to satisfy itself that prima-facie, the act by accused irrespective of its result was done with such intention or knowledge and under the circumstances, as mentioned in the section 307 IPC. There may be cases where no injury is suffered by the victim but the act done by the accused would still fall within the ambit of Section 307 as the act alone coupled with intention or knowledge is sufficient. In the present case, from the material available on record it is evident that according to the injury report, injured Subhash received two injuries, out of which one injury is on his skull. Earlier, the doctor opined that head injury was grievous in nature but later upon seeking fresh opinion, the doctor opined that injury No. 1 was grievous in nature and also dangerous to life. Therefore, the offence under Section 307/34 is prima facie made out against the petitioners.
6. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court has only to see whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, make way for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
7. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, [LQ/SC/2010/998] Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of the judgment has laid down the principles which are to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C., which are as below :
"(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the state of Sections 227 & 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept al that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
8. In the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, [LQ/SC/2012/789] Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the initial stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the Court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage.
9. In the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 476, [LQ/SC/2012/1009] the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as below :
"While framing charges, court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused. Even if there is a grave suspicion against the accused and it is not properly explained or court feels that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charges against the accused is justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must indicate that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials indicate that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge is proper. Materials brought on by prosecution must be believed to be true and their probative value cannot be decided at this stage. The accused entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by prosecution. He is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted. Whether the prima facie case made out depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. If two views are possible and materials indicate mere suspicion, not being grave suspicion, against accused then he may be discharged. The court has to consider broad probabilities of case, total effect of evidence and documents produced before it. The court should not act as mouthpiece of prosecution and it is impermissible to have roving enquiry at the stage of framing of charge."
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in yet another case of Vaneet Mahajan Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (Criminal Appeal No. 718/2017) decided 13.04.2017 while allowing the appeal filed by the complainant, ordered to try the accused for offence under Section 307 IPC with the following observations :-
Further the question as to whether there was an intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case which has to be attributed on evidence by the Trial Court. We would like to reproduce paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment incorporating the aforesaid principles:
"15. The relative portion of the statement of FIR witness Gautam Chaudhary reads as follows:
"... Soon after, Sunil Sahni along with Ramesh Sahni, Deepak Sahni, Mohan Sahni and Buchchu Sahni after variously armed with farsa, talwar, iron rod, lathi, paipa (small size of lathi) came there and Sunil Sahni soon after his arrival told "aaj vrakilwa ko sabak sikha dena hai' (today we have to teach a lesson to the advocate) "sala paisa nahi diya hai" stating this he having armed with farsa, gave farsa-blow with intent to kill him over his head to which the informant wanted to save him but the said farsa-blow inflicted near his right ear and Mohan Sahni gave talwar-blow over the throat of the informant which resulted in injury over his throat and the informant fell down and even then Deepak Sahni having iron rod in his hand assaulted the informant with iron rod which inflicted injury over the left wrist of the informant and the other Accused persons Ramesh Sahni, Dinesh Sahni and Shunbhu Sahni assaulted with lathi, feet, slaps in the meantime. Asbari Sahni, Laxmi Sahni, Santosh Sahni, Jagdish Sahni and four to five unknown persons came there and abused the informant with intent to provoke breach of the peace and they stated to teach lessons to the advocate who is partaking much."
16. The statements of the witnesses Baiju and Manoj Chaudhary are also in the same lines. What is discernible from the above statements is that the first Accused and Ors. while committing the alleged offence, had exhorted that they would kill the Appellant if the money was not paid. Open announcement by the Accused and Ors. that the Appellant would not be alive to practise in the High Court, would prima facie indicate that the intention of the Accused was, what he had spoken, followed by the infliction of injuries. Further, when several persons attack an unarmed person with deadly weapons, it is reasonable to presume that they had knowledge or intention that such an attack would result in death.
In the instant case, as per the statements, the weapons used were lathi, rod, farsa, talwar, etc., and when we look at the nature of the injuries, it is clear that the injuries were caused by using sharp-cutting weapons and also with hard blunt substance. Injuries were inflicted on the right temporal region of scalp at the base of the right ear, right side of occipital region of scalp, left side of occipital region of scalp, etc. Open declaration by the Accused that a person would be killed, indicates his intention and, as held by this Court in Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, the question as to whether there was an intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case which has to be attributed on evidence by the trial court. The above facts would indicate that the ingredients of Section 307 Indian Penal Code are made out."
11. In the opinion of this Court, no plausible ground exists for interfering in the impugned order. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 20.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No. 2, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar. Hence, the present criminal revision petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
