Sukhdev Singh vs Ajaib Singh and ors.

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that case FIR No 133 dated 2.7.1987, under Section 307/34 IPC, Police Station Mansa came up for framing a charge before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. By order dated 1041990, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that no offence under Section 307 IPC was disclosed and the offences constituted by the facts and circumstances were under Sections 279, 337/34 IPC. It was, therefore, directed that the case shall be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda to try the same either himself or through any other Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter.

According to the prosecution, Sukhdev Singh along with Balwinder Singh was returning from Mansa in his Maruti car on 271987. At about 10.00 PM they reached near the Courts on Chhoti Mansa Road. A truck came from the opposite direction, went on wrong side and struck against the car causing damage to it. Balwinder Singh came out of the car along with licensed rifle of Sukhdev Singh who was at the wheel. The driver of the truck, however, reversed his vehicle and again banged into the car. Balwinder Singh then fired at the truck with the rifle as by that time it was clear that the persons travelling in the truck were inimical to them. Sukhdev Singh identified Ajaib Singh who is related to him amongst the persons who came out of the truck and escaped in another truck which was coming behind the aforesaid truck. As a result of the above impact, the glasses of the car were broken and Balwinder Singh as Well as Sukhdev Singh sustained injuries on their person. It was further stated in the FIR that Sukhdev Singh's real nephew, that is, sister's son, Baldev Singh was murdered about two years earlier by one Janti. In connection with that Case, Mohinder Singh and Hari Singh had been convicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment and they had come out on bail. Ajaib Singh accused in the present case is related to said Mohinder Singh who was President of the Truck Union, Budhlada, and he used to roam about with Mohinder Singh. The informant, Sukhdev Singh expressed the suspicion that the incident had occurred in pursuance of a conspiracy to kill him by crushing the car under the truck.

A perusal of the order shows that two factors appeared to have prevailed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the conclusion than prima facie no offence under Section 307 was constituted. These are that the driver of the truck had no motive and; secondly, if the allegations that the truck intentionally banged the car the damage to the car would have been far more than was found.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all that was required to be seen at the stage of framing a charge by the Courts was whether there was a prima facie case. The court could not under take a meticulous examination of the evidence. It was also contended that for framing a charge, the Court is required to take into consideration, the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the number and nature of injuries suffered were not conclusive in the context of an offence under Section 307 IPC.

The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that if the prosecution story were true, the car would have been completely smashed and there was no question of its occupants getting away with minor injuries. It was also pointed out that if the accused had intentionally banged the truck against the car, they would not have chosen a place near the Courts where police was present.

I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions of the warned counsel. I do not propose to undertake a detailed discussion of the question because ultimately at the appropriate stage the trail Court will have to decide the significant question as to the offence which is disclosed on the proof of facts of the case. In the limited context of the disposal of the present revision petition, it may be observed that there can be no two views that for framing a charge, especially under Section 307 IPC, the totality of facts and circumstances have to be taken into consideration. The nature of the injury suffered is not the only test. Reference may be made to State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and others, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 305, It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the evidence is not to be meticulously judged. Only a prima facie case is required to be seen. If any authority is required, reference may be made to State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, 1977 C.L.R. (S.C.) 374 which was again relied on in Radhey Shayam v. Kunj Behari and others, 1989(2) S.P.J. 598 (S.C.). The learned Additional Sessions Judge fell into a grave error by going into the question as to the extent of damage suffered by the car with a view to accepting or rejecting part of the prosecution story that the truck was taken back to some distance and again the front of the car was banged with it. It is manifest that the damage will depend on a large number of factors which can be properly gone into only at the trial. For these reasons, the revision petition succeeds and the same is allowed and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 1041990 is hereby set aside. The parties will appear before the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, who may retain the case on his own file or may entrust it for disposal to any of the Additional Sessions Judges posted there. The trial Court will proceed further in the matter and dispose of the case expeditiously as some delay has occurred on account of the pendency of this revision. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Court of Sessions on 2231991.

JUDGMENT accordingly.