The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider the intention or knowledge of the accused in determining the appropriate charges to be framed under relevant sections of the law.

1. Through the medium of this revision petition, petitioner/complainant has prayed for setting aside of order dated 30.06.2015 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu by virtue of which accused-respondents have been charge-sheeted under Sections 325/323/451/506/147 instead of Section 307 RPC on the strength of grounds set out in it. It has also been prayed that there was specific allegation of outraging modesty of woman, but no charge u/s 354 ROC has been framed.

2. The main facts emanating from the case set up by the petitioner are that on 01.07.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused by making unlawful assembly started damaging the wall of the collapsed house of the complainant, to which son of the complainant-Farooq Ahmed asked accused not to damage the standing wall of the house and the accused hit the Farooq Ahmed on the head with a brick causing serious injury on the head and also outraged the modesty of Parveen Bibi and caught hold her from the breast, tore her clothes and dragged her. It is contended that Farooq Ahmed suffered multiple head injuries, i.e., hemorrhagic contusion right frontal region, continued depressed, fracture of frontal bone right side, fracture frontal sinus extending upto rod of right orbit. A certificate in this regard was issued by Board of Doctors of Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana and same is annexed as Annexure-B to the petition. It is further contended that FIR No.38/2014 for commission of offence punishable under Sections307/451/354/323/147/506 RPC was also registered with Police Station Gharota and challan was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Sub Registrar), Jammu who committed the same before the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu and accordingly it was transferred to 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, who at the time of framing of charge modified the charge by giving explanation that as per the medical opinion the injuries on the person is grievous in nature caused by blunt object and the injuries suffered by Mohd. Irfan and Arsha Bibi are simple in nature. The accused was armed with lathi and gathered the intention of the accused and came to the conclusion that since the accused were not having lethal weapons, so the offence under Section 307 RPC is not made out. It is contended that the finding returned by learned trial Judge is not based on facts and is contrary to the record, therefore, the modification of the charge is unsustainable. Feeling aggrieved of the order impugned, petitioner has challenged it on the following grounds:-

(i) That the order impugned is against the law and facts as such liable to be set-aside. The son of the petitioner who suffered grievous injuries as a case of assault HT Hemorrhagic contusion, right frontal region as per the medical jurisprudence such type of injuries produced by blunt force and are found in grey and white matter due to injury of blood vessels by mechanical stress and are present as streaks or group of punctuate hemorrhages accompanied by variable amounts of necrosis. Often, these injuries occur I cerebral and cerebella and deeper structures basal ganglia, mid-brain stem are contused especially from impacts to forehead vertex. The medulla may be contused in association with fracture which extend into the foramen thus such types of injuries could cause death. Therefore, the court below had wrongly come to the conclusion that the injuries could not cause death. Thus, the court below had made the opinion and modified the charge. Therefore, the order impugned is bad and liable to be quashed.

(ii) That the order impugned is otherwise bad and liable to be quashed on the ground that the injuries have been shown comminuted depressed and fracture of frontal bone. As per the medical jurisprudence such types of injuries create contusion and laceration of the brain are two degrees of the same process and oftenly there is fracture of skull. The court below has not appreciated the nature of injuries and laid