Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 3180
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
T.P.S.Mann, J.
Gopi Chand
Versus
Davender Mangla
Criminal Revision No. 2297 of 2002,
Decided On : AUGUST 7, 2006
At the time of framing the charge, even a strong suspicion is sufficient, and if the evidence shows that the accused has committed the offence, he has to be charged for the same.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Complaint - Sections 307/148/149 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the allegations under Sections 307/148/149 IPC, the evidence adduced, the timing of the complaint, and the implications of FIRs and charge-sheets. The court also highlighted the legal principle that at the time of framing the charge, even a strong suspicion is sufficient, and if the evidence shows that the accused has committed the offence, he has to be charged for the same. The court set aside the discharge of the accused and directed to proceed with the trial after charging the said accused for the offences made out against them.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a criminal complaint under Sections 307/148/149 IPC against the accused for causing injuries with an intention to kill. The accused were discharged by the lower court on the ground of late filing of the complaint and insufficient evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the discharge of the accused and directed to proceed with the trial after charging the said accused for the offences made out against them.
Issues: The issues revolved around the timing of the complaint, the implications of FIRs and charge-sheets, and the sufficiency of evidence at the time of framing the charge.
Ratio Decidendi: At the time of framing the charge, even a strong suspicion is sufficient, and if the evidence shows that the accused has committed the offence, he has to be charged for the same.
Final Decision: The court set aside the discharge of the accused and directed to proceed with the trial after charging the said accused for the offences made out against them.
T.P.S.Mann, J.
1. The present revision has been filed by complainant Gopi Chand challenging the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 24.7.1999, whereby the respondents were discharged of offences under Sections 307/148/149 IPC.
2. A criminal complaint under Sections 307/148/149 IPC was filed by the complainant against the accused. It was alleged that he along with others was an employee in the factory M/s. Mangla Udyog. The employees sat on dharna in front of the factory for 24 hours on 29.1.1990 for acceptance of their demands. At the time, when the gate meetings were held, owners of the factory, accompanied by their henchmen, started throwing glass bottles and stones on the employees besides firing some gun shots. Luckily, none of the employee was hit on account of the firing of shots. The District Committee of the employees decided to lead a powerful procession on 9.2.1990 in support of their demands. When they were proceeding towards the gate of the factory, the owners of the factory, along with their henchmen, fired gun shots towards the employees. As a result, four labourers received gun shot injuries. Accused Virender Mangla fired gun shot towards Sher Singh s/o Bhajan Lal, the pellets of which hit him on his head and chest. Davinder Mangla again fired towards Gopi Chand s/o Chet Ram, who received three pellet injuries on his person. Nandan s/o Ram Rattan was hit on account of firing of shots by Davinder, Virender and Sita Ram. Similarly, Balbir s/o Udey Singh was injured at the hands of Virender and Narender. The accused had caused injuries to the complainant and his companions Sher Singh, Nandan and Balbir with an intention to kill them. The complainant, thereafter, went to the Police Station to lodge a report but it was all in vain. Left with no option, he filed the present complaint on 10.4.1990.
3. After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate found that there was substance in the allegations levelled in the complainant against the accused Davinder Mangla, Virender Mangla, Sita Ram and Narender. Accordingly, they were ordered to be summoned to face trial under Sections 307/148/149 IPC. However, the complaint was dismissed against accused Ram Pal, Mohinder Singh, Surinder Singh, Danveer Singh, Sunil and Amar Singh Dagar as the allegations made against them were found to be not substantiated.
4. Accused Narender Singh was reported to have died. Accordingly, his name was deleted from the array of the accused. Accused Sita Ram could not be arrested and he was declared a proclaimed offender. However, accused Davinder Mangla and Virender Mangla appeared in the complaint and they were released on bail. The case was, thereafter, committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. At the time of consideration of the case for the purposes of framing of charge, it was contended on behalf of the accused that the evidence adduced by the complainant did not prima facie disclose commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/148/149 IPC. The accused, accordingly, prayed for their discharge.
6. After hearing counsel for the complainant and the accused, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide impugned order dated 24.7.1999 discharged the accused on the ground that the complaint was filed as late as on 10.4.1990, whereas the incident was of 9.2.1990. It was also held that the allegations made in the complaint did not disclose a prima facie case as the evidence adduced was meagre and insufficient and further that the FIR No. 69 dated 9.2.1990, charge-sheet dated 12.1.1991 and final judgment delivered on 25.11.1998, prima facie showed the false implication of the accused persons in the incident. Besides, it was observed that the complainant filed the present complaint not only as an after-thought but also as counter-blast to the criminal case registered against him and others at the instance of the accused.
7. Counsel for complainant Gopi Chand has submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case,
