Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 170 (PNJ)

Madan Lal v. Rang Lal

2002-02-06

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2002
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. Madan Lal complainant and his brother Ram Sarup were in cultivating possession of land owned by one Khiali Ram. At about 10.00 P.M. on May 25, 1992, when he was irrigating the land from the tubewell, the accused Rang Lal, Ami Lal and Mange Ram alongwith 3-4 more persons came to the tubewell and threatened Madan Lal with dire consequences and after having done so, set fire to the cotton sticks lying in the tubewell kotha, causing damage to the electricity cable as well. When Madan Lal and Ram Sarup attempted to intervene, Rang Lal fired gun shots at Ram Sarup and Ami Lal at Madan Lal with an intention to kill them, though the shots missed their targets. The accused then left the spot saying that they would eliminate the family members of Gurmesh Bishnoi, who was an associate of the complainant party. It appears that the incident had taken place on account of a civil suit pending with regard to the tubewell in question. Madan Lal and Ram Sarup brought the circumstances of the case to the notice of the police, but no action having been taken, a complaint for offences punishable under Sections 307/435/436/506/34 IPC was filed on August 8, 1992 (Annexure P-1) after recording preliminary evidence of about 42 witnesses, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwani Camp at Hisar vide his order dated 7.12.1992 (Annexure P-2) summoned the accused to stand trial only for offences punishable under Sections 435/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This order of the Magistrate was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in revision. 2. The present petition has been filed by the complainant that the accused should also have been summoned for the prosecution under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the facts as made out in the preliminary evidence and that the Judicial Magistrate had, in the impugned order (Annexure P-2) virtually decided the matter as a case on merits in a trial. 3. This matter came up before this Court on 2.2.1994 when further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed meanwhile and notices to the respondents were issued for 28.2.1994. These notices were served, for that date, but no body has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 4. It will be seen that the complaint had been filed under Sections 307/435/436/506/34 IPC. These notices were served, for that date, but no body has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 4. It will be seen that the complaint had been filed under Sections 307/435/436/506/34 IPC. The complainant examined as many as 42 witnesses. The Magistrate, however, observed that no offence under Sections 307/436 IPC had been made out by observing thus :- "I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. In my view complainant has failed to prove a prima facie case under section 307 I.P.C. Admittedly no injury was caused to any person due to gun shots. It is not mentioned as to on which part of the bodies of complainant and his brother Ram Sarup, the gun shots were aimed. It is also not mentioned that what was the distance between the places where the complainant and accused were standing. Complainant was required to prove that accused persons were standing at a place from where gun shots could be fired easily on the complainant and his brother. If a shot is fired from a long distance it may not hit the person towards which the gun was aimed. Hence, no offence is made out under Section 307 I.P.C. Similarly Section 436 I.P.C. provides that whoever commits mischief by fire etc. intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as place for the custody of property shall be punished with imprisonment for life.........." 5. When the matter was taken up in revision, the order of the Magistrate was maintained for the following reasons :- i) As per averments in the complaint the accused accompanied by 3/4 persons came to the land of the complainant and the first thing they did was to ask the complainant and his brother to leave the field and run away. This infers that the accused did not have the intention to kill the complainant or his brother but they only wanted them to leave the fields. This infers that the accused did not have the intention to kill the complainant or his brother but they only wanted them to leave the fields. ii) The further averment in the complaint is that when the complainant and his brother in the electric light of the tubewell tried to stop the accused from setting the cotton sticks on fire but Rang Lal fired a shot from his gun at Ram Sarup and Ami Lal accused fired a shot from his gun at Madan Lal complainant. But neither the shot filed by Ami Lal nor the shot fired by Rang Lal hit either the compliant or his brother Ram Sarup. The complainant has attributed their escape only to their good luck. He did not disclose as to how they were able to save themselves from the gun shots. It is also not the averment in the complaint that the complainant and his brother were at a long distance from the assailants. So it does not appeal to mind as to how the complainant as well as his brother Ram Sarup escaped unhurt when it is not their case that the shots were fired from a long distance. iii) After the shots were fired by two of the accused and the complainant and his brother escaped unhurt. They were allowed to run away towards the village. If the accused were actually armed with guns and they intended to kill Madan Lal or his brother, they could have fired even more shots with their guns to achieve their object. But there is no allegation that any of the accused tried to fire any shot from their gun while the complainant and his brother were fleeing from the spot to save themselves. iv) The story regarding the taking place of the occurrence in which Rang Lal and Ami Lal accused allegedly fired shots at Madan Lal and his brother Ram Sarup has been supported by only Madan Lal and Ram Sarup, who are the real brothers. There is no independent corroboration of their evidence about firing of shots at them from their guns by the accused." 6. There is no independent corroboration of their evidence about firing of shots at them from their guns by the accused." 6. It does appear from the facts as brought out that no offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code is made out as the incident had happened outside the tubewell kotha but in so far as the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is sufficient preliminary evidence to show that a charge ought to have been framed thereunder. It will be seen that from the above quoted paragraph the reason given by the Magistrate for holding that the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, was not made out, were wholly irrelevant and not called for at the stage of the framing of the charge and that these findings could have been recorded only after an appreciation of the evidence. In Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan and another, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1780, the Honble Supreme Court held as under :- "At the stage of Sections 203 and 204, in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, all that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry under Sections 200 and 202, there is prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused. All that he has to see is whether or not there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" against the accused. At this stage, the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial court. The standard to be adopted by the Magistrate in scrutinising the evidence is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges. Even at the stage of framing charges the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the complainant produces or proposes to adduce at the trial, is not to be meticulously judged. The standard of proof and judgment, which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing charges. The standard of proof and judgment, which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing charges. A fortiori, at the stage of Sections 202/204, if there is prima facie evidence in support of the allegations in the complaint relating to a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, that will be a sufficient ground for issuing process to the accused and committing them for trial to the Court of Sessions." 7. It is clear, therefore, that the Courts below had gone beyond their jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly allowed and whereas the finding that no offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code was made out is maintained, the matter is remitted to the Magistrate who shall submit the case to the Session Judge for further proceedings in the light of this judgment and on the premise that a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on May 25, 2002.