Ram Chand Gupta, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the `Cr.P.C.) against order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in Criminal case No. 16 of 2009 arising out of FIR No. 372, dated 12.12.2008, registered under Sections 406/498- A/323/307/506/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short the `IPC), vide which it was held that there is no sufficient ground for presuming that the respondents-accused committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and further that there as sufficient grounds for presuming that respondents-accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 406/498- A/323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and hence the case was transferred for trial to the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra for offences under Sections 406/498- A/323/506 read with Section 34 IPC of all the four accused.

2. I have learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

3. Briefly stated the present FIR was registered on the complaint filed by Smt. Jitender Kaur wife of Nawab Singh as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, on 15.1.2003 and that sufficient dowry was given by her parents at the time of marriage. Out of the wed-lock a daughter was also born, who is now five years old. However, her husband Nawab Singh; father-in-law Hardeep Singh; mother-in-law Gurbachan Kaur; Devar (brother-in-law) Sartaj; and Nanad (sister-in-law) Harpreet Kaur were not satisfied with the dowry given by her parents and they used to harass her on account of demand of more dowry and they used to give her beatings. Many panchayats were also convened but to no effect. About two years ago, complainant brought Rs. 2 lacs from her father and had given the same to the accused. The accused behaved properly for some time, however, for the last few days accused raised demand of Rs. 10 lacs by saying that parents of the complainant are based in America and having enough money, however, complainant flatly refused on the plea that her parents were not in a position to fulfill the said demand.

4. Further allegations are that on 15.12.2008 at about 10.00 a.m., Hardeep Singh, father-in-law, Gurbachan Kaur, mother-in-law caught hold of complainant by her hair whereas accused Sartaj, brother-in-law and Harpreet Kaur, sister- in-law put a chunni (duppta) around her neck with an intention to kill her and pulled the same and proclaimed that if she would not bring Rs. 10 lacs from her parental home, they would kill her. They also gave beatings to her. On her raising alarm, all the four accused went to the roof and complainant was turned out of the house of her parents, she narrated entire story to her brothers, namely Jasbir Singh and Surender Singh, who brought her to Civil Hospital, Kurukshetra and got her admitted.

5. Complainant was medico legally examined at L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra on 15.12.2008 at 3.45 p.m. and the following injuries were found on her person :-

i) Contusion of size 6 x 1 cm on neck right side situated horizontally;

ii) Contusion three in numbers of different size and shape over lower back situated parallel to each other and obliquely swollen. Swelling present;

iii) Contusion of size 5 x 2 cm over right lower leg interiorly;

iv) Scratch of size 6 cm over left lower left middle third;

v) Complaint of pain left knee. No external injury seen."

6. Injuries were opined to be caused by the blunt weapon and duration of the same was within 12 hours. Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were declared simple and injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were kept under observation. However, there was no further opinion regarding the nature of the said injuries and, hence, learned trial Court has rightly taken the said injuries as simple in nature.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that chunni as put around the neck of the complainant by accused Sartaj and Harpreet Kaur, while the other accused caught hold of her and that the same was also pulled. It is further contended that as per medico legal report injury was also found around the neck of the complainant. It is further contended that this very fact goes to prima facie show that intention of accused was to kill the complainant. It has further been argued that at the stage of framing of charge, even strong suspicion is enough for the framing of charge and that the requisite intention is to be gathered from all the circumstances. It is further argued that the complainant remained unfit to make the statements for two days and the statement of prosecution witnesses stands corroborated by medical evidence. Hence, it is contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in discharging the accused for offence under Section 307 IPC.

8. He has also placed reliance upon State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni, 2003 (3) RCR (Criminal) 452 and Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Limited v. Sanjay Choudhary and Ors., 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 640 [LQ/SC/2008/2040] .

9. On the other hand it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents-accused that from a bare perusal of the complaint itself, no offence under Sections 307 IPC is made out. It has been contended that there was only a contusion of size 6 x 1 cm around the neck and the same appears to be self inflicted as contusion of such a size is not possible if a chunni (dupatta) is pulled around the neck. It is further contended that from the averments in the complaint itself the requisite intention or knowledge cannot be attributed to the accused and that at the most there or knowledge cannot be attributed to the accused and that at the most there was treat to he complainant to fetch amount of Rs. 10 lacs from her father. It is further argued that complainant allegedly left the house of her in-laws of her own and reached the house of her parents and narrated the whole facts an hence, it is contended that a false report has been procured from the medical officer of Kurukshetra that she was not fit to make statement for two days.

10. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that at the time of framing of charge only prima facie case is to be seen and even if here is strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame charge and that there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of the conviction. Law is also well settled that veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously gone into at that stage.

11. In Mohan Lal Sonis case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the present revision-petitioner, it was observed as under by Honble Apex Court;

"11. xx xx xx xx

As is evident from the paragraph extract above if the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. Per Contra, if the evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce to prove the guilt of the accused, even is fully accepted before it is challenged by the cross-examination or rebuted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence, then the charge can be quashed.

12. From the decisions referred to in the same paragraph and he decisions already referred to above there was no bar to consider the material on record in the case on hand, which was collected during he course of investigation and produced before the Court and particularly in view of the directions given earlier by the High Court."

12. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366 [LQ/SC/1978/327] , the provisions of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. were considered and the Honble Supreme Court enunciated the board principles to be kept in view for the purpose of framing charge as under :-

"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above the following principle emerge ;

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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.

(2) 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.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down rule of universal application. By and large however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied hat the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a part as a Post-office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the document produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

13. In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, 1996 (3) RCR (Criminal) 410 (SC), it was reiterated that while considering the question of framing of charge, the Judge has undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it was difficult to lay down a rule of universal application.

14. In a recent judgment rendered in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rameshwar and others, 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 709, it was observed by Honble Apex Court that High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the trial Courts order of framing of charge unless there is glaring injustice.

15. Hence in the context of this legal proposition it is to be seen as to whether learned trial Court has committed any material irregularity or illegality in holding that prima facie no case for offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the respondents-accused. It is to be seen as to whether he respondents-accused can be attributed the requisite knowledge/intention to commit murder which would render them liable to trial and prosecution for the offences under Section 307 IPC alongwith other offences.

16. It would be pertinent to reproduce Section 307 IPC in order to appreciate the contention made by counsel for both the parties, which reads as under :

"Attempt of murder :- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Attempt by lift convicts- When any person offending under his section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may if hurt is caused, be punished with death."

17. Hence, the important thing to be borne in mind in determining the question whether an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out is the intention or knowledge and the requisite intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Hence, for the limited purpose of appreciating the question as to whether there was intention or knowledge that by the act done by the accused death would be caused, the necessary material on the record is required to be perused. For this purpose the Court at the time of framing of charge can sift and weigh the evidence and also can see from the totality of the circumstances as to whether there was an intention or knowledge to cause murder.

18. In the present case the version of complainant Jatinder Kaur is that on 15.12.2008 he father-in-law Hardeep Singh, mother-in-law Gurbachan Kaur caught hold of her from her hair and other two accused, i.e., brother-in-law Sartaj and sister-in-law Harpreet Kaur put a chunni (dupatta) around her neck and pulled the same and proclaimed that if she will not fetch Rs. 10 lacs from her parental home, they shall kill her and thereafter when she raised alarm she was turned out of matrimonial home and the accused ran upstairs and she herself reached the house of her parents. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that from the bare reading of above version of the complaint it goes to show that alleged beating of complaint including alleged putting of chunni around her neck was to coerce her to fetch Rs. 10 lacs from her parental home and for that purpose she was turned out of matrimonial home and from these allegations no inference can be drawn that requisite knowledge or intention can be attributed to the accused to kill the complainant.

19. Further the injury on the neck was only a contusion of size 6 x 1 cm, which was simple in nature. She was conscious when she was medico legally examined. She had gone to the house of her parents from the house of her in- laws of her own. Hence, it has explainable at this stage as to how the complainant remained unfit for giving her statement for two days as opined by the medical officer.

20. Further there is force in the argument of learned counsel the respondents-accused that no pinion was sought by the police from the medical officer as to whether the contusion of size 6 x 1 cm found on the neck of the complainant was dangerous to life or could cause death in the ordinary course of nature and rather the opinion sought was to advise as to whether death could be caused if chunni had been further pulled around the neck and a misleading opinion obtained from the doctor that possibility of the same could not be ruled out. Even the report of FSL only shows that the chunni was strong enough to bear the force of pull and the same could be used for strangulation. Hence, taken into consideration all these facts including the kind of injury found on the neck of the complainant, there is no sufficient ground for presuming that the respondents-accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for the purpose of framing of charge.

21. Hence, taken into consideration the peculiar facts of the present case, as discussed above, and the sifting and weighing the material o record for the limited purpose of charge, I am of the view that impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality. The same cannot be said to be, in any way, perverse and hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was fully justified to examine if the accused is to be tried and if so for what offence is to be tried, more so when some of the offences relate to cases triable by the Court of Sessions and other by the Court of Magistrate. As from the material produced on the record, as discussed above, no case for framing of charge for offence under Section 307 IPC is made out, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly transferred the case for trial of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, in terms of Section 228 Cr.P.C. with a direction to frame formal charges against the respondents- accused for offences under Sections 40-6/498-A/323/504 read with Section 34 IPC.

22. Hence, present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

23. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the decision of the case on merit.

Petition dismissed.