Nirmaljit Kaur, J.:- This is a revision petition against the order dated 23.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which, the charge have been framed under Sections 307, 324, 323, 427/34 IPC against the present petitioners.

2. While challenging the same, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court has failed to correctly appreciate the entire gamut of facts and has improperly used its discretion by framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. The trial Court has missed out the fine difference between ‘mere suspicion’ and ‘grave suspicion’ which had a devastating effect on the life and liberty of the accused persons.

3. Secondly, all the injuries which have been alleged by the complainant Surjit Singh are self suffered simple injuries on non-vital parts like finger and foot.

4. Lastly, the real story never came to light since the police did not record the statement of Baljinder Singh and framed a false case involving all the family members of the accused. The entire investigation done by the police was one sided and they did not even record the statement of the independent witness Wasakha Singh, who at the relevant time, was present near the spot. The entire case prepared by the prosecution against the accused persons is totally ‘manufactured’ and ‘framed’ story which has been created by the Investigating Officer Jagatpreet Singh who is also the SHO of Police Station Bhawanigarh.

5. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered in the case titled as Onkar Nath Mishra and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported as [2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 8] : 2008(1) RCR(Criminal) 336, as well as, the judgment of this Court rendered in the case titled as Paramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported as 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 516.

Heard.

Section 307 of the IPC reads as under :-

“307. Attempt to murder :- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Attempt by life convicts – When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.”

6. It is evident from the above section that at the time of murder, an aspect which is to be borne in mind in order to ascertain whether an offence under Section 307 I.P.C is made out is the intention or knowledge. The substance of the offence is the intention or knowledge that the act which is done is such that death would be caused, whereas, in the present case, the allegations in the FIR read thus ;

“ All the accused along with their respective weapons attached upon complainant. Then Kulwinder Singh gave his `dasti kirpan’ blow upon the complainant with the intention to kill him and in order to save from the blow, the complainant raised his right hand and the blow hit on his little finger and adjoining finger of his right hand. Then Baljinder Singh inflicted his `dasti sota/dang’ blow upon the complainant which hit on his right elbow. On this, complainant, his son Jasbir Singh and his sons’ brother-in-law Teja Singh raised an alarm `Mar Ta – Mar Ta’. While complainant party was raising alarm, Gursewak Singh inflicted his `takua’ blow upon him, which hit inside his left ankle. Therefore, in order to save from the blow/injuries, he tried to descend from the tractor and on this Sardara Singh inflicted `dasti kirpan’ blow upon him and in order to save from the blow, complainant bent down and the blow hit on the rear wheel of the tractor. Darshan Singh tried to inflict his `dasti sota’ blow upon him and the blow struck against the tractor and then hit back on the left h