IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Kuldip Singh, J.
Chuhru Ram
Yash Pal - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2012
Decided On : 29.8.2012
Framing of Charge - Section 307 IPC - [ASSAULT] - [Section 307 IPC] - The court discussed the allegations of reckless driving and attempted murder, and concluded that there were sufficient grounds to frame a charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where a police officer was injured by a vehicle while attempting to stop it, leading to the framing of charges under Section 307 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were sufficient allegations and evidence to frame a charge under Section 307 IPC against one of the petitioners, but not against the other petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the charges under Section 307 IPC were justified for the actions of the accused in the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of weighing evidence and determining a prima facie case, as established in the Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni cases, to decide on the framing of charges under Section 307 IPC.
Final Decision: The court set aside the charge under Section 307 IPC against one petitioner but upheld the charge against the other petitioner.
Kuldip Singh, J.
The order dated 28.4.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Chamba, H.P. in Sessions trial No.12/12/2011 framing charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC against petitioners has been assailed in the revision.
2. The further facts are that on the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Kartar Singh initially a case under Sections 279, 338 IPC was registered against the petitioners on the basis of which FIR dated 17.3.2010 was recorded. Kartar Singh was got medically examined.
3. The supplementary statement of Kartar Singh was recorded and the case was converted into Section 307 IPC. The prosecution case is that on 17.3.2010 police received secret information that Alto car and Mohindra Pick-Up were coming from Chamba side carrying some articles. A naka was put up at Sukdain Bain. Mohindra Pick-Up No.HP-73-0625 came in high speed. It was signaled to stop. instead of stopping the vehicle the accused negligently and rashly negotiated a turn in such a manner that the front tyre rammed the right leg, left shoulder and neck of the complainant who fell down. The accused sped away from the place in high speed. The complainant was medically examined. The case was registered, on completion of investigation challan was presented.
4. The trial Court instead of framing of charge under Section 279 read with Section 337 IPC, framed a charge under Section 307 IPC vide order dated 28.4.2012 which has been assailed in the revision. It has been stated that Kartar Singh instead of getting himself examined either at Banikhet or Dhalhousie or Chamba hospitals procured a forged certificate from Trauma and Spine Centre Pathankot which is a private hospital. The trial Court has erred in framing charge under Section 307 IPC. According to Investigating Officer the offence under Section 279 read with Section 337 IPC was made out but learned trial Court of his own framed a charge under Section 307 IPC without any material in support of framing of charge under Section 307 IPC
5. Heard and perused the record. The statement of H.C. Kartar Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He has stated that on 16.3.2010 he was at Banikhet alongwith other police officials. At about 3.30.a.m on 17.3.2010, a secret information was received that one Alto car and one Mohindra Pick-Up coming from Chamba side carrying some contraband. At about 5.15 a.m. a naka was put up at Sukdain Bain, a Pick Up No.HP-73-0625 came in high speed which was signaled to stop.
6. The driver rashly and negligently turned the vehicle in such a way that the driver side and front tyre hit the complainant on his right leg. He sustained injuries on left shoulder and neck also and fell down and became unconscious. The driver of Pick-Up No.HP-73-0625 sped away the vehicle. Alto Car No.HP-44-1851 was also following Pick-Up No.HP-73-0625. The driver of Alto car reversed the vehicle and sped away. The complainant stated that he was not aware of the name of the driver of Pick-Up No.HP-73-0625 but he can recognize him. The driver of Pick-Up No.HP-73-0625 in high speed rashly and negligently while turning the vehicle injured the complainant.
7. In supplementary statement of Kartar Singh he has stated that he singled the Pick-Up No.HP-73-0625 to stop. The driver of Pick- Up at once took turn in high speed and tried to run over the complainant, constable Anuj Kumar pulled the complainant but despite that Pick-Up hit the complainant causing injuries in the right leg, left shoulder and neck. The complainant fell down, both the vehicles returned towards Chamba and sped away. The complainant became unconscious. The driver of Pick-Up with intention to kill the complainant tried to run over under the vehicle. He attempted to kill the complainant.
8. Kartar Singh complainant made another supplementary statement and has stated that Pick-Up No.HP-73-0625 was being driven by Yash Pal on 17.3.2010. Chuhru Ram was sitting with him. He identified both of them. Yash Pal in high
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.