SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(P&H) 532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manoj Bajaj, J.
Narender Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others - Respondents
Criminal Revision No.1418 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 23-06-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Tanushree Gupta, AAG, Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of examination of prosecution material at the stage of framing charges, and the court's discretion to evaluate the nature of injuries independently.

Headnote:

Injury - Criminal Trespass - Arms Act, 1959, Section 27, IPC Sections 307, 447, 323, 325, 34 - The court examined the nature of the injury suffered by the petitioner and concluded that a prima facie case for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC was made out. The trial court rightly declined the application for framing charges under Sections 307/447 IPC but ordered the trial court to frame charges against the respondents under Section 326 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute between two brothers over joint land holdings, resulting in violence and injuries to both parties. The petitioner sought framing of charges against the respondents for offences under Sections 307 and 447 IPC, in addition to Sections 323, 325, and 34 IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that a prima facie case for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC was made out against the respondents. It held that the trial court rightly declined the application for framing charges under Sections 307/447 IPC but ordered the trial court to frame charges against the respondents under Section 326 IPC.

Issues: The main issue was whether the injury suffered by the petitioner warranted charges under Sections 307 and 447 IPC, and if the respondents should be charged under Section 326 IPC instead of Section 325 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court examined the nature of the injury and the weapon used, concluding that a prima facie case for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC was made out. It also emphasized the limited scope of examination of prosecution material at the stage of framing charges.

Final Decision: The revision petition was disposed of, with the trial court ordered to frame charges against the respondents under Section 326 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Bajaj, J.

1. Petitioner-Narender Singh has preferred this revision petition to challenge the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby his application for framing the charge against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 447 IPC in the cross-case arising out from FIR No.111 dated 03.05.2016, under Sections 307, 506, 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, 1959, Police Station, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, was dismissed.

2. According to the final report submitted by police, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were involved in commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC and the trial Court, as such, framed the charges against them.

3. The facts, in brief, leading to the revision petition are as under :-

    (i) On the basis of the statement of Pritpal Singh son of Gurdayal Singh, FIR No.111 dated 03.05.2016, under Sections 307, 506, 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, 1959 was registered against Narender Singh and Gurdev Singh. As per the allegations, the complainant and his three brothers, namely, Narender Singh, Rajpal Singh and Harpal Singh were having joint land, which was partitioned for cultivation. Narender Singh was having land at Badshami-Radour road and complainant requested him to give the share in the land adjoining the road and against that, he (complainant) was ready to give the share in the land situated on the back side. On 02.05.2016, complainant sent a message to his brother Narender Singh through the village Chowkidar and asked him not to cultivate the land of his share and they should talk about partition of the land. However, Gurdev Singh son of Narender Singh declined the request and further conveyed that they would continue to cultivate the land and complainant may do whatever he wishes to. The complainant again sent his son Charanjit Singh to Gurdev Singh, however, the result remained the same. As per the allegations, the complainant released the water of tubewell in the disputed land and after half an hour, Narender Singh along with his son Gurdev Singh armed with weapons came to their fields, where complainant along with his sons Charanjit Singh and Sarvjit Singh was present. Narender Singh and his son Gurdev Singh got annoyed and Narender Singh exhorted that they be taught a lesson for releasing the water in the land. Thereafter, Gurdev Singh fired at Charanjit Singh from his licensed revolver with an intention to kill and it hit the left side of his neck, who fell down. Again Gurdev Singh fired two shots at Sarvjit Singh and hit on his chest and left thigh respectively and he also fell down. Upon raising alarm by complainant, the assailants fled away while firing in the air. Upon these broad allegations, above FIR was registered for commission of offences of attempt to murder, criminal intimidation and Arms Act.

(ii) On the next day, a cross version was recorded on the statement of Gurdev Singh son of Narender Singh against Charanjit Singh and Sarvjit Singh, both sons of Pritpal Singh, wherein they were indicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC. In the cross version, it was alleged by Gurdev Singh that his father was having joint land with his uncles in the area of Village Niwarsi and Kheri Dabdalan. The land was joint which was partitioned for the purposes of cultivation. The land approximately 7½ acres situated on the road going from Kheri Dabdalan to Radour Yamunanagar was in their (complainant and his father) possession and was being cultivated for the last 13 years. It was narrated that on the previous day, i.e., 02.05.2016, they had cultivated the land for sowing sugar-cane crop and his uncle Pritpal Singh was asking for his share in the said fields in exchange to the land situated on the back side and the proposal was refused by them. According to him, the complainant and his father Narender Singh went to the fields in Kheri Dabdalan where his uncle Pritpal Singh, his son

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top