HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. Cr Rev No. 84 OF 2006 Shakeel Ahmad Petitioners Fida Hussain & Ors Respondent !Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Abrol, Advocate ^Mr. O. P. Thakur, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL HALI, JUDGE. Date: 01.01.2010 :J U D G M E N T :
This Criminal Revision has been filed against order dated
17.10.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ramban, whereby the respondents have been directed to be
tried under Sections 323/325/326/341/34 RPC, holding that no
offence under Section 307 RPC is made out against them. The
Challan, accordingly, has been directed to be transferred to the
Court of Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ramban, for
disposal of the case under law.
Mr. Sethi, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is an employee of the
Forest Department, while on his way to attend his official duty
on 11th of July, 2006, was attacked by the respondents with iron
rods and lathies. This was with a criminal intention to kill the
petitioner as there was some old enmity between the parties
with regard to a piece of land. It is stated that on account of the
said attack the petitioner sustained multiple injuries and
remained hospitalized for about three weeks and underwent a
surgery also. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the
medical certificate issued by the Registrar, Surgical Unit-6,
SMHS Hospital Srinagar, copy whereof has been placed on
It is further stated that Challan against the respondents
was filed before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge
Ramban, under Sections 307/323/325/345 RPC but the learned
Court, without appreciating the facts and the nature of injuries,
as reflected in the medical certificate issued by the authority
concerned, has committed a legal error in discharging the
respondents for offence under Section 307 RPC by order
impugned. It is stated that while framing the charge, the learned
trial Court should not have only relied upon the opinion of the
doctor regarding sufficiency of the injuries to cause death but
should have also taken into consideration the evidence and
circumstances which only suggested that the intention of the
respondents was to kill the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is not in dispute that while framing charge if there is
reasonable suspicion that the accused has committed the
offence, than he is required to be put to trial. However, the
courts will not act as Post Office. It is required to peruse the
record and come to a prima facie opinion that there are
sufficient grounds for framing the charge against the accused.
The case of the petitioner is that the trial Court has discharged
the accused under Section 307 RPC solely on the basis of the
report of the doctor who has examined the petitionercomplainant
and has not taken into consideration the
circumstantial evidence which suggested that intention of the
respondents was to kill the complainant. There is no dispute
that the statements of the eye witnesses cannot be over looked
by relying exclusively on the report of the expert evidence.
However, the nature of the injuries which are inflicted on the
body of the complainant can only be confirmed by the medical
evidence. The nature of the injuries will reveal the weapon of
offence used which can only be gathered from the injuries
which have been inflicted on the complainant.
In the present case the trial Court has, after examining
the report of the doctor, discharged the accused persons for
offence under Sections 307 RPC and charged them under
Sections 323/325/326/341/34 RPC. According to the report of
the doctor, injuries no. 1 to 5 are simple in nature whereas
injury no. 6 is grievous injury.
I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the
well reasoned order of the trial Court.
The revision petition has no force. It is, accordingly,
Anil Raina, Secy.