Petitioner sought modification of an order refusing to frame a charge for grievous hurt under Section 307 IPC. The High Court held that intention cannot be determined during the pendency of the trial before evidence is led.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No.M-9259 of 2011 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-9259 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.03.2011
Ravi Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.Mansur Ali Advocate for the petitioner.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for modification in the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in cross-version dated 10.05.2010 arising out of FIR No.259 dated 10.06.2009 registered under Sections 307, 323, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Patiala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused persons had given injuries to the petitioner on the head and vital parts of the body. He further submits that injury No.1 was on the right side of the occipital region and injury No.2 was also on occipito-furital bone region and CT scan was advised. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner remained in hospital for four days and the charge should have been framed under Section 307 IPC but the same has not been framed only on the ground that opinion of the doctor was not there and intention to cause grievous injury was also there.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.
Only by stating that the intention of the accused persons was to cause death or such injury, the charge should have been framed under Section 307 IPC instead of 324 IPC is not sufficient at this stage. The
Criminal Misc. No.M-9259 of 2011 (O&M)
2
intention of the accused cannot be seen at this stage as the evidence has not come so far and it is for the trial court to see on the basis of evidence available during the period of trial whether the intention of the accused was
there to cause grievous injuries or not.
No ground is made out to interfere.
Dismissed.
March 28, 2011. Seema-II
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient grounds exist to modify the impugned order refusing to frame a charge under Section 307 IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravi Kumar
State of Punjab
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
