Dr. Kirpal Singh Sandhu vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 7.5.2011 (Annexure P-15) in FIR No. 97 dated 17.11.2010, u/s 307, 325, 323 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC for short), registered at Police Station Harike, Tarn Taran, whereby charge was ordered to be framed against respondent No. 2 u/s 308, 323, 325 IPC by the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in framing the charge against respondent No. 2 u/s 308 IPC whereas charge was liable to be framed against the petitioner u/s 307 IPC. The doctor had opined that the injury on the person of the petitioner was dangerous to life. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in fact, injured Rupinder Kaur had suffered fracture of skull and had become dependent on others for her daily needs. Rupinder Kaur was now having impaired memory, understanding and difficulty in speech.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the Trial Court had rightly framed charge against respondent No. 2 u/s 308 IPC.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant and his wife Rupinder Kaur had gone to their fields. Their servant Surinder Kumar started cultivating the land. At about 5.00 P.M., respondent No. 2 reached the spot and said that he would teach them a lesson for cultivating the land. Respondent No. 2 picked up a brick lying on the ground and hit the same on the head of Rupinder Kaur. As a result of this, Rupinder Kaur fell on the ground. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 picked up another brick and gave a blow with it on her head. As a result of this, Rupinder Kaur became unconscious. When the complainant came forward to save his wife, he was pushed by respondent No. 2 and as a result of this, complainant suffered injury on his nose. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 left the spot.

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against respondent No. 2.

Admittedly, injury on the person of Rupinder Kaur has been declared dangerous to life. Rupinder Kaur-injured has suffered brick injuries on her head and, had, suffered fracture of her skull. The Trial Court, thus, committed a patent error while ordering framing of the charge against respondent No. 2 u/s 308 IPC vide impugned order dated 7.5.2011 (Annexure P-15). The Trial Court noticed all the facts but on surmises and conjectures presumed that petitioner had no intention to cause death. Prosecution case is that two injuries were given on the head of injured Rupinder Kaur with bricks by respondent No. 2. The said fact in itself is sufficient to prima facie hold that respondent No. 2 had the intention/knowledge that he would be guilty of murder if his act had caused death. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 7.5.2011 (Annexure P-15) is set aside to the extent whereby it was ordered that charge be framed against respondent No. 2 u/s 308 IPC. The Trial Court is directed to frame charge against respondent No. 2 u/s 307 IPC instead of Section 308 IPC.