At the stage of framing charges, the court must determine if a prima facie case exists based on the intention behind the act; under Section 307 IPC, the focus is on the accused's intent or knowledge to cause death, rather than the nature or result of the injury inflicted.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 27.02.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram in case arising out of FIR No. 138 dated 23.02.2022, registered under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 506 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Ladwa, whereby the petitioners were chargesheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 325, 506 and 307 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by complainant Sarupinder Singh alleging that in the morning of 21.02.2022, while he along with his brother was going back from a temple, he was intercepted by four youths with covered faces, who were armed with weapons and who opened an assault upon him, thereby causing injuries with their respective weapons and also snatched an amount of Rs.6,000/- kept in his pocket by extending threats to kill him. On clamour being raised by his brother and himself, some persons had reached there and then the assailants had fled away. He also alleged that he could identify the assailants on seeing them.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On 01.03.20225, the complainant recorded his supplementary statement to the effect that on the fateful day, there were 8-9 persons, who were armed with weapons and one of whom was holding a pistol. He recorded that the said pistol was shown to him by that youth and threats were extended to him. He further recorded that on checking from CCTV cameras installed in the shop nearby the site of occurrence, he had identified his assailants and disclosed their names as Arman, Parvinder Singh, Jagtar Singh @ Fauji, Ankit Kumar @ Dilawar Singh, Prinkal, Rajat @ Paasi, Gulfaan Ali @ Golu and Tinku Kumar. On the basis of this statement, the petitioners were nominated as accused. They were arrested during the course of investigation. After completion of investigation, challan has been submitted.

4. Vide impugned order, the petitioners have been chargesheeted for commission of aforementioned offences. Feeling aggrieved from the fact that charge under Section 307 of IPC has been framed against them, they have filed the present petition laying challenge to the same.

5. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They were not named in the FIR and were nominated as accused in pursuance of a supplementary statement recorded by the complainant after a delay of nine days from the date of occurrence. Even the FIR was registered after a gap of two days. It is further argued that as per the medico-legal report of the complainant, some lacerated wounds were found on his person. All the injuries so sustained by him were on non-vital part of the body. The complainant was found to be conscious and well oriented at the time when he had reached at the hospital. In fact, the petitioners and the complainant are close relatives. They could have been easily identified by the complainant even if some of them were with muffled faces. The fact that the complainant waited for a period nine days to implicate them itself falsifies the prosecution version. No injury sustained by the complainant has been opined to be dangerous to life. No firearm has been injury sustained by the complainant. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Secti