The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the essential ingredients of Section 326 IPC and the definition of 'grievous hurt' under Section 320 IPC.

JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, J. - Petitioner Gurmeet Ram Rahim has approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition to challenge two impugned orders dated 03.08.2018, passed on the same date by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Haryana at Panchkula in case FIR No.RC1(S)/2015 SCU.V/SCII/CBI/New Delhi dated 07.01.2015 under Sections 120-B, 326, 417 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') Police Station SC-II CBI/New Delhi, whereby an application moved by the petitioner-accused under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been dismissed and charges have been framed against him and other accused under Section 120-B read with Section 417, 326 and 506 IPC and substantive offences punishable under Section 326 read with Section 120-B IPC and further charges against the petitioner under Sections 417 and 506 IPC.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the petition are that the petitioner is facing trial in said FIR. After conclusion of investigation, final report dated 31.01.2018 under Section 173(2) of the Code was submitted against petitioner-accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim and other coaccused namely Dr. Pankaj Garg and Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner and other two accused under Section 120-B read with Section 417, 326 and 506 IPC and substantive offences punishable under Section 326 read with Section 120-B IPC and further framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 417 and 506 IPC. Petitioner-accused also filed an application under Section 239 of the Code before the trial Court for discharge, which was also dismissed on the same date i.e. 03.08.2018. Both the said orders are subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas no offence is made out against him. The application moved by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code has wrongly been dismissed, whereas petitioner should have been discharged as no case is made out under the aforesaid sections. Learned counsel further submits that there is unexplained delay and the petitioner deserves to be discharged only on this ground alone. Neither any explanation has come forward on the part of prosecution nor it has been considered by the trial Court while framing the charges. A judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Dilawar Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi , (2007) 12 SCC 641 was relied upon but the same has not been considered. Learned counsel further submits that total 166 such persons who were in touch in the investigation. They were asked to join investigation for the purpose of recording their statements but only 128 persons who, were allegedly castrated, were examined by the Investigating Officer and out of those 128 persons, only 6 persons came forward to depose against the petitioner. Around 20 persons who were examined during course of the investigation had admitted that they had been castrated but 20 such persons did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to alleged allegation of castration and refused to undergo medical examination. Learned counsel also submits that an application under Section 207 read with Section 91 of the Code was moved to place on record the aforesaid statements but it was dismissed by the trial Court on 05.05.2018. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M No.22639 of 2018, whereby the liberty was given to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy at the appropriate stage. Learned counsel also submits that as per provisions of Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the prosecution and benefit should have been extended to the pe