Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1379 (PNJ)

Nitish Kumar v. State of Punjab

2015-08-03

SNEH PRASHAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sneh Prashar, J.:- CRM-8588-2015 The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the revision petition. For the reasons enumerated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 32 days in filing the revision petition is hereby condoned subject to all just exceptions. CRR-940-2015 1. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the petitioners have been charge sheeted under Sections 148, 149, 452, 302, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code in case First Information Report No.2 dated 4.1.2014 registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana. 2. The accusation against the petitioners was that Balram Singh gave a blow with the bat which hit on the tongue and jaw of Dharam Dev (since deceased) and Nitish (petitioner No.1) gave a blow with dah which hit on the back side of neck. When he raised shouts, all the accused including the petitioners and some unidentified persons, who were armed with sticks gave beatings to him with their respective weapons and threatened to kill him. While leaving they threw him from the roof top due to which, he suffered internal injuries. After a few days of the occurrence, Dharam Dev died due to the injuries suffered by him. 3. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners have been heard. 4. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the medico legal report of the deceased, there was no external injuries in back side of his neck and he complained of pain only. The deceased was discharged from the hospital just after three days and was advised to follow up after seven days in the Neurology OPD. Subsequently after 26 days of occurrence, the deceased due to septicemia. His death did not occur due to the injuries suffered by him, as opined by the doctor the cause of death was “sepsis with shock with hyerpkalemia”. Learned trial Court without considering the PMR of the deceased has wrongly framed the charge under Section 302 IPC. Subsequently after 26 days of occurrence, the deceased due to septicemia. His death did not occur due to the injuries suffered by him, as opined by the doctor the cause of death was “sepsis with shock with hyerpkalemia”. Learned trial Court without considering the PMR of the deceased has wrongly framed the charge under Section 302 IPC. In support of her contentions, she cited B.N.Kavatakar vs. State of Karnataka 1994 SCC (Crl.) 579; Harnek Singh and others vs. State of Haryana 2008 Crl.L.J.3997; Narayan and others vs. State of M.P. 2009(78) AIC 676 and Raju Gulathi vs. State of Jharkhand 2014 AIR (Jhar R.) 418. 5. In the present case, the petitioners alongwith some unknown persons armed with deadly weapons caused injuries to Dharam Dev and his son Arvind. After 26 days of the occurrence Dharam Dev succumbed to the injuries. In his statement on the basis of which, the First Information Report was registered, the deceased had specifically mentioned that Balram Singh gave him a bat blow which hit on his tongue and jaw and Nitish Kumar gave him a dah blow which hit on the back side of his neck. Son of the deceased, namely, Arvind also suffered injuries. The deceased was admitted on 3.1.2014 and was discharged from hospital after three days. Thereafter, he was admitted in Apollo Hospital on 18.1.2014 and the doctors declared the injuries suffered by him to be ‘dangerous to life’, due to which, section 307 IPC was added to the case. Unfortunately he succumbed to the injuries on 28.1.2014 on which Section 302 IPC was invoked. The grievance of the petitioner of having been served with a chargesheet under Sections 148, 149, 452,, 302, 323, 506 IPC is ill founded. Prima facie the material presented by the prosecution was sufficient for framing the charges against the petitioner-accused under the said sections. 6. At the stage of chargesheet, the material relied upon by the prosecution is not to be scrutinised meticulously. Even a strong suspicion of commission of offence and involvement of the accused is sufficient to frame the charges. 7. In State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh 1977 AIR 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. 7. In State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh 1977 AIR 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” 8. In State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 415, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that at the time of framing of the charge, the trial court can consider only the material produced by the prosecution. 9. In the case of Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari and others reported as 1989 Supp (2) SCC 572, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in going into meticulous consideration of evidence and appreciation of documents and statements filed by the police at the stage of framing of charge and it was held as under:- “The High Court has also deemed it necessary to quash the charge against respondents No.1 to 3 because in its opinion the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution, even if fully accepted, cannot show that respondents No.1 to 3 committed any offence and referred in that behalf to the decision in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh. We find that the High Court’s conclusion about the inadequacy of the evidence against respondents No.1 to 3, besides being a premature assessment of evidence, is also attributable to the wrong premises on which the High Court’s reasoning is based.” 10. At the initial stage when Court is required to consider the question of framing of charges, there is no requirement to formulate an opinion about prospects of conviction. Only the test of a prima facie case is to be applied and not the standard of test regarding guilt of the accused is to be seen. The court has to be satisfied only about the prima facie existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence as laid down by Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Only the test of a prima facie case is to be applied and not the standard of test regarding guilt of the accused is to be seen. The court has to be satisfied only about the prima facie existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence as laid down by Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court while framing of charges and as such, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. ----------------------------------