IMPORTANT PONT
Attempt to Murder - The opinion by two doctors that injuries were not dangerous to life; is only an opinion - Insufficient to hold that no offence u/s. 307 IPC is made out.

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.

1. This order shall dispose of Crl.R.Nos.1078 and 1316 of 2005, as both petitions arise from the same FIR and impugn the same order.

2. Prayer in the present petitions is for setting aside the order dated 7.4.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Patiala, whereby charges have been framed, against the petitioners, under Sections 307, 326/323/506/120- B/148 of the IPC.

3. Pursuant to a statement by Kewal Krishan Jindal, the complainant, FIR No.272, dated 26.8.2002 was registered under Sections 324/323/506/379/148/149 of the IPC, at Police Station City Malerkotla, District Sangrur. The complainant thereafter filed Crl.Misc.No.44094 M of 2002 praying therein that investigation into the aforementioned FIR be transferred from Punjab Police to the CBI. Vide order dated 20.5.2003, this Court entrusted investigation to the CBI. Upon conclusion of investigation, the CBI filed a final report indicting the petitioners. On the basis of this report and vide the impugned order, dated 7.4.2005, the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Patiala framed charges, against the petitioners, under Sections 307, 326/323/506/120-B/148 of the IPC.

4. Counsel for the petitioners contend that even a perfunctory appraisal of the final report, submitted by the CBI, would reveal that no offence, under Section 307 of the IPC, is made out. It is further contended that the medical examination of Kewal Krishan Jindal revealed 18 injuries but Dr. Sushil Jindal, Senior Resident Doctor, Multi Organ Transplant Division, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi, who examined the complainant, while working as a Junior Resident Doctor at CMC, Ludhiana, stated that injuries, on the person of Kewal Krishan Jindal, were not of the nature, which could have caused his death. Dr. Sanjiv Goel, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Malerkotla, who examined the complainant initially, also made a similar statement. It is, thus, contended that the injuries, inflicted upon the complainant, do not disclose the commission of an offence, punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, as no injury, dangerous to life, has been found, on the person of the complainant.

5. It is further argued that the trial Court was required to pass a detailed, reasoned order, disclosing reasons that led it to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioners had, prima facie, committed an offence, under Section 307 of the IPC. As no reasons have been assigned, the order, framing charges, be set aside. It is further contended that the complainant and the accused are all politicians, on opposite sides of the political spectrum and, thus, the entire incident is based upon political vendetta. First version, put forth by the complainant, differs from the version now placed, before the trial Court. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned order, framing charges against the petitioners, be quashed.

6. Counsel for the respondent, while rebutting arguments, raised by counsel for the petitioners, contends that the impugned order does not call for any interference, as it does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction as would require interference, in the exercise of jurisdiction, under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. It is contended that on arrival at Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, the Senior Medical Officer constituted a board of three doctors, comprising of Dr. Sanjiv Goyal, Dr. Sheetal Jain and Dr. Ritu Sethi to conduct a medico legal examination of the complainant. A total of 18 injuries were found on the person of the complainant, caused by blunt and sharp edged weapons. As his condition was serious, the complainant was referred to Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, where Dr. Sushil Jindal conducted a medico legal examination. The injuries clearly establish that grievous, as well as simple injuries were inflicted upon the complainant. It is further contended that the evidence, on record, which includes the statements of the complainant, as also the eye witnesses, a