The main legal point established in the judgment is that to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the act must be done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section, irrespective of the actual result of the act. Additionally, the possession of prohibited arms under the Arms Act, 1959, must align with the definitions and requirements specified in the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Kuldip Singh, J.

The State has filed the present revision against order dated 10.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Camp at Rohru in Sessions Trial No. 5-R/7 of 2010 arising out of FIR No. 49 of 2009 dated 13.4.2009 registered at Police Station, Rohru, discharging the respondents under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'Act') and holding that prima facie case against the respondents has been made out for offences punishable under Sections 148, 324, 506 read with Section 149 IPC.

2. The facts in brief are that in FIR No. 49 dated 13.4.2009 registered at Police Station, Rohru report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The case was committed to the court of Sessions by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohru on 23.3.2010. The Sessions Judge assigned the case to Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla on 27.4.2010.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Rajeev Kumar, FIR No. 49 of 2009 came to be registered at Police Station, Rohru on 13.4.2009. In the FIR it has been stated that on 13.4.2009 the complainant had gone for his personal work to Melthi, at about 5.00 p.m. he was standing in Melthi Bazar near taxi stand, the car bearing registration No. HP-10A-1580 came from Shalahan side in which accused were sitting and it was being driven by Kapil Mohan.

4. It has been alleged that car was stopped near complainant, Neeraj while sitting in the car gave a sword blow and pierced the right wrist of complainant from where excessive blood oozed out. The accused came out from the car and said they had come to sever his head. He was saved by Pawan Kumar, Babloo, Bali Ram and others, otherwise the accused would have killed him. Thereafter all the accused fled away in the same car after extending threats that they would kill the complainant.

5. The Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 10.12.2010 has held material prima facie does not disclose the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. It has also been held that there is no allegation in the charge sheet that sword is a 'prohibited arm' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act. The copy of notification issued by the Central Government has also not been placed on record, nor it is the case that some licence was required to be taken in respect of sword under Section 5 of the Act. It has been observed that there is no material to frame charge even for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged the respondents under Sections 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Act but held that prima facie case is made out against respondents for offences punishable under Sections 148, 324, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. The case vide impugned order has been sent to Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohru for disposal in accordance with law. The State has challenged the order dated 10.12.2010.

6. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner and Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate learned counsel for the respondents. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that Additional Sessions Judge has erred in discharging the respondents for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and has submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned order.

7. The complainant Rajeev Kumar was got medically examined on 13.4.2009 and five injuries were found on his person by the doctor in the MLC. The patient was referred to IGMC, Shimla for expert opinion and treatment. The investigating officer sought the opinion of the doctor vide letter dated 17.4.2009, who opined t