Lal Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab and Anr

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1.    The  present  revision  petition  has  been  filed  against  the  order dated 05.03.2024, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur in Sessions Case No. SC-368 of 2023, titled as State vs. Lal Singh and others, arising out of FIR No. 139 dated 12.12.2022, under Sections 148, 452, 308, 323 and 506 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC, whereby charges under the above said sections were framed against the petitioner and co-accused.

2.    Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present case are that the aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioner and co-accused on the allegations that on 11.12.2022, they formed membership of an unlawful  assembly  and  in  prosecution  of  common  object  of  that  unlawful assembly,  they  opened  an  assault upon  the  complainant/respondent  No. 2-Gurwinder  Singh  and  others  by  criminally  trespassing  into  his  house  and caused  injuries  to  him  with  intention  to  kill  him  and  also  criminally CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M)                                                                                                    -2-

intimidated him and also committed offence of rioting. During the course of investigation, the petitioner and co-accused were arrested and subsequently they were released on bail. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan under the aforesaid sections was filed against the petitioner and co-accused. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the trial  Court  by  observing  that  a  case  for  commission  of  aforementioned offences had been made out against the accused.

3.    It  is  argued  by  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  that  the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while framing charges, the trial Court did not consider the fact that no case for framing of charge under Section 308 of IPC had been made out against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner along with co-accused had gone to fetch husk stored in his plot and on reaching there, it was found that Gurwinder Singh and family had raised a wall  over  the  foundation  of  the  plot  belonging  to  the  petitioner.  When objection  was  raised  as  to  the  construction,  then  instead  of  relenting, respondent No. 2 along with his family members opened an assault upon the petitioner and rather, he (petitioner) had sustained injuries in the occurrence and  had  saved  his  life  by  managing  to  escape  from  that  place.  He  was admitted to hospital and the petitioner was further referred to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. It is submitted that the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the police on 12.12.2022 and DDR No. 34 was entered but no action was taken upon the same. Rather, the police by colluding with respondent No. 2 lodged the aforementioned FIR falsely against him and wrongly added offence under Section 308 of IPC later on. It is  argued that injuries found on the person of the complainant were opined to be simple in nature by a medical CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M)                                                                                                    -3-

board constituted for that purpose, as per direction issued by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-60733-2022 but this fact had not been taken into consideration. It is submitted that only one injury, which too was caused by blunt weapon, had been found on the person of the complainant and on the basis of the same, no case for framing of charge under Section 308 of IPC had been made out.

4.    It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court also committed a grave error by framing charge under Section 452 of IPC as though a scuffle had taken place between the parties but the same had not taken place on any property belonging to the complainant side. It is submitted that the trial Court erred in not considering this fact. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the impugned order be set aside to the extent to which charges under Sections 452 and 308 of IPC were framed and the  petitioner  may  be  discharged  of  offences  punishable  under  these  two sections.

5.    Per  contra,  learned State  counsel has  argued that  there is  not illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. There was prima facie case on record  to  prove  that  the  petitioner  along  with  co-accused  had  formed membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of that assembly, he had criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and had committed offence of rioting by opening an assault upon them and had  caused  injuries  to  the  complainant  side  and  had  also  criminally intimidated them. At that stage, the trial was required to consider the broad probabilities  of  the  case  and  not  to  conduct  a  mini  trial  and  as  such,  the CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M)                                                                                                    -4-

impugned order did not warrant any interference by this Court and deserves to be upheld. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.    I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record carefully.

7.    Before  delving  into  the  correctness  of  the  impugned  order whereby the learned trial Court had passed order for framing charges under Sections 308 and 452 of IPC along with other sections, this Court considers it necessary  to  reiterate  the  well  settled  proposition  of  law  pertaining  to  the framing of charges and the scope of this Court to interfere under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.

8.     In  this  context,  reference  can  firstly  be  made  to  a  celebrated pronouncement  of  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  cited  as  'Union  of  India  Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samel, (1979) 3 SCC 4' wherein the the following principles had  been  laid  down  while  dealing  with  the  question  of  discharge  under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. or framing of charge under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-

10. "Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles 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. CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M)                                                                                                    040

¶3The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that 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.

¶4That 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 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 appearing in the case and so on. This, however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." (Emphasis supplied) !.     e)#an"e  "an  a)so  be  p)a"ed  upon  >Sa$$an  Kumar  Vs.  C%I, ( !1!) 9 SCC 3"#,' &here#n the 9on=b)e Supre(e Court had "ons#dered the po&ers of Courts #n respe"t of fra(#n' of "har'e and d#s"har'e and the fa"t that a prima facie "ase &ou)d depend upon the fa"ts and "#r"u(stan"es of ea"h "ase and had )a#d do&n the fo))o&#n' pr#n"#p)es:- "21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:

(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 CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M)                                                                                                    060

against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie cases 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 stage of Sections 227 and 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 all that the prosecution CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M)                                                                                                    -7-

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 and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal". (Emphasis supplied)

10.     It has been held time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court possesses the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The trial Court must exercise its judicial mind to the facts of the case before arriving at a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It has been observed that such exercise must be undertaken so as to ensure that an  individual  does  not  have  to  be  put  through  the  rigors  of  the  criminal judicial system for no fault of his. The sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances  against  the  accused  so  as  to  frame  charge  against  him. Reference in this regard can also be had to the observations made by Apex Court in 'P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398' and :Vishnu Kumar Shukla and another Vs. State of Uttarpradesh and another, AIR 2024, Supreme Court 90'.

11.     Recently, in a case cited as :Shashikant Sharma and others Vs. State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  another  2024(1)  RCR  (Criminal)  67',  the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if from the admitted evidence of the CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M)                                                                                                    -8-

prosecution, as reflected in the documents filed by the investigating officer in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the necessary ingredients of an offence are  not  made  out, then  the  Court is not  obliged  to  frame  charge  for  such offence against the accused.

12.     The ratio of law as laid down in the above cited authorities is that while framing of charge, the very foundation of formation of opinion is that as to whether there is sufficient material on record to 'prima facie' make out a case of commission of an offence. The word prima facie when used in terms of prima facie view as far as consideration on the point of framing charge is concerned, would certainly means there being enough material for substance which would give rise to strong suspicion against the accused and holding of a view in favour of the prosecution.

13.    On  applying  the  above  discussed  proposition  of  law  to  the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is noticed that as per the allegations, the petitioner had given a blow with a kirpan (sword) on the head  of  the  complainant/respondent  No.  2.  As  per  medico-legal  report (Annexure P-3), a lacerated wound (18x1) cm on left parietal region extending from hairline to occipital area with irregular margins was found and surgical opinion was advised. Undoubtedly, as per the report (Annexure P-9) given by the concerned doctor, since no bony injury was found, hence it was opined to be simple in nature. For the purpose of Section 308 of IPC, it is, however, not essential that injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient under ordinary circumstance to cause death of the person. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if one by that act caused death, CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M)                                                                                                    -9-

he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the accused had the intention to cause death or knew in the circumstances that his act was going to cause death. For that purpose, the important factors which may be taken into consideration are the nature of weapon used, the intention expressed by the accused at the time of the act, the motive of commission of offence, the nature and size of the injuries, the parts of the body of the victim selected for causing injuries and severity of the blows.

14.    In  this  case,  the  injury  on  the  person  of  the  victim  was undisputedly on the vital part of his body i.e. occipital region of his head. It is alleged to be caused with a sword. The severity of the blow can be discerned from the fact that wound was of the size of 18x1 cm. It was extending from hair line to occipital area with irregular margin. Keeping in view the nature of injury sustained by respondent No. 2, the statements of respondent No. 2 and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It cannot be held at  the  stage  of  framing  of  charge  that  there  was  no  sufficient  ground  for proceeding  against  the  petitioner/accused  under  Section  308  of  IPC.  The intention or knowledge of the fact on the part of the petitioner that injury so inflicted on the vital part of the body of the victim could cause death, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

15.    So far as the charge under Section 452 of IPC is concerned, a specific allegation has been levelled in the FIR that the occurrence took place in the plot owned by the complainant party. It is a different matter that there might be some dispute with regard to demarcation of that land but at the time of framing of charge under Section 452 of IPC by the trial Court, a prima facie CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M)                                                                                                    -10-

under that section as well was sufficient. As discussed above, the trial Court is competent to frame charge even upon a grave suspicion of commission of offence. The trial Court formed a prima facie opinion that there was sufficient ground to put the petitioner and co-accused to trial for the charges framed under Sections 308 and 452 of IPC, apart from the charges as framed under other  sections  and  it  was  not  for  the  trial  Court  to  form  an  opinion  that material  collected  during  investigation,  if  proved,  during  trial  would  be sufficient to convict the accused for the said charges or not.

16.    Accordingly,  on  considering  the  rival  submissions  of  both  the parties, material placed on record and on overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in the impugned order, passed by the trial Court. Hence, the same is upheld. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

25.07.2024              (MANISHA BATRA) W??eem ??????                JUDGE

CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.07.2024 Lal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.