Discharge stage limits court to prima facie case assessment without evidence scrutiny; 'dangerous to life' injury equals grievous hurt, but single abdominal sharp blow amid road rage insufficient for attempt to murder absent clear lethal intent.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (learned Trial Court) in Session Trial No. 20/23 titled State of H.P. vs. Sarvjeet Singh @ Sonu vide which the learned Trial Court dropped the charges under Section 307 of IPC against the respondent No.2 (accused). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner/informant was returning from Gurudwara, Paonta Sahib, on 11.09.2021 in his Scooty bearing registration No. HP-17D-0851. A car bearing registration No. UK07 AJ 5704, being driven by Saravjeet Singh @ Sonu (the accused), was going ahead of him near Union Bank. The informant overtook the car. The car hit the Scooty near Lamba Niwas. The accused, Saravjeet Singh @ Sonu, took out an iron pipe and beat the informant with it. The accused thereafter took out a ‘Kripan’ and inflicted an injury on the informant’s stomach. The accused, Saravjeet Singh, tried to run the informant over with his car. Sonu Gupta witnessed the incident. The informant was taken to the hospital. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police found during the investigation that the informant and the accused were related to each other, and they had civil disputes pending between them. Saravjeet had registered an FIR No. 145 of 2021 against the informant and his brother, and a charge sheet was filed before the Court. The informant had sustained injuries which were stated to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life. Hence, a charge sheet was filed before the Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 356 and 506 of the IPC.

3. The matter was listed for consideration before the learned Trial Court on 12.10.2023. Learned Trial Court held that the FIR did not mention that injuries were caused to the informant with the intention to kill. The incident was related to road rage. The initial MLC did not mention that the injury was grievous in nature or dangerous to life. The Medical Officer advised a CT scan. Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, issued a report stating that the injuries were caused by a sharp weapon and involved vital organs of the body, namely the lungs and intestines. Hence, the injuries were grievous in nature and dangerous to life. This report was not acceptable. All the tests were normal at the time of discharge. No injury was noticed in the discharge summary. The attending circumstances did not show the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Hence, the learned Trial Court discharged the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under of the and remitted the matter to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, to decide it as per the law.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the informant/petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in discharging the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court could not have recorded a finding regarding the non-applicability of of the without examining the Doctor. The Medical Officer had specifically stated that the injury was dangerous to life, and the learned Trial Court erred