At the stage of framing charges, the court must determine if there is sufficient prima facie evidence or strong suspicion to proceed; however, allegations of intent to kill must be supported by medical evidence if the injuries are non-vital and simple in nature.

****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court praying for impugning order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge, Special Court, SAS Nagar, whereby the charges have been framed under Sections 323, 341, 427 and 34 of IPC and the accused were discharged under Section 307 IPC on the basis that there is no evidence on the file to frame the charge under Section 307 IPC and direct the learned trial Court to frame the charge under Section 307 IPC in addition to the already framed charge. Further prayer has been made for staying the further proceedings before the learned trial Court during the pendency of the present revision petition.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Gursewak Singh, son of Mahinder Singh. It was alleged that on 03.12.2023, in the after noon, the complainant had gone to his land on his tractor as dispute regarding partition of land was going on with Maan Singh, who was his Chacha, in which village Sarpanch Sorjaveer Singh intervened and got the decision made. It was alleged that the complainant purchased 03 bighas of land from his Chacha, namely, Maan Singh and he was given his share and built a boundary wall, thereafter, he demolished the boundary. It was further alleged that on the same day, i.e. on 03.12.2023, at about 06:30 P.M., Harmanpreet Singh came on his tractor on which Maan Singh was sitting and both were armed with iron rods. Harmanpreet Singh rammed his tractor at a high speed into the tractor of the complainant with intention to kill him. It was alleged that Ramanpreet Singh raised lalkara, Harmanpreet Singh gave a rod blow on the fingers of right hand of the complainant and Maan Singh gave another rod blow on his other hand. Ramanpreet Singh dragged the complainant from the tractor and Harmanpreet Singh tried to gave rod blow on his head but the same hit on the left side of his neck and thus, he gave another rod blow on his back. Thereafter, they tried to ran over a tractor and attack with rod’s with intention to kill the complainant and then, ran away from the place of occurrence along with their weapons. Thus, the request was made to take the legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The injured were medico legally examined. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused under Sections 323, 341, 427, 34 of IPC vide order dated 08.04.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present criminal revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned order dated 08.04.2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. He has submitted that the police completed the investigation and presented the challan under Sections 307, 323, 341, 427 and 34 IPC. He has submitted that the accused persons formed a common intention to kill the complainant and Harmanpreet Singh, initially attempted to kill the complainant by ramming his tractor at high speed into the tractor of the complainant on which he was sitting. He has further submitted that the complainant was assaulted with iron rods, which hit on the vital parts of his body and the same clearly shows the intention of accused persons to commit murder. He has further submitted that the complainant has suffered 07 injuries. He has submitted that the learned trial Court has wrongly discharged the accused under Section 30