INGH @ SATTA & Anr. v. PUNJAB

Judgment

1. The instant revision petition has b The has been filed by the petitioners against the order order dated 16.02.2026 passed by th by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar Nagar (Mohali) in case arising out o 2024 out of FIR No.33 dated 24.04.2024 registered under S nder Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 14 B of , 148, 149, 307, 201 and 120B of IPC at Police Sta ce Station IT City, District SAS Nag S Nagar (Mohali), whereby charges under Sections 12 ns 120B, 307, 324, 323, 506, 201 an 4 of 01 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC had been fram n framed as against the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for t Brief t for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that th that the aforementioned FIR was regis s registered on the basis of statement recorded by the co the complainant Jashandeep Singh al 4, he ingh alleging that on 23.04.2024, he alongwith his brot is brother Harshdeep Singh had gone After gone to attend their school. After the school hours, ours, he had come out of the school - school and was standing at the bus- AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O (O&M) 2 stand of Village B llage Bakarpur whereas his brother w n the ther was inside the school. In the meanwhile 6-7 you 7 youths riding on some bikes reache reached there. They were in Nihang attire. One of the of them struck a blow with a stick stick which he was carrying while passing through hi ugh him. The complainant raised alar d alarm and then the other boys who were accompanyin panying that youth, also opened an ass an assault upon him thereby causing injuries on his kne knees, back and left leg. He also rd at also sustained injuries with sword at the hands of one f one of them. His brother had reach ll of reached at the spot and then all of them fled away w way while extending threats to kill to kill him. Initially a case under Sections 148, 323 8, 323, 341 and 506 read with Sectio ered. Section 149 of IPC was registered. During the course course of the investigation, offence u ence under Section 307 of IPC was added. The peti e petitioners were arrested. Investig ded. vestigation now stands concluded. Challan has been p been presented in the Court.

3. Vide order dated 16.02.2026, the pe Vide the petitioners were charge-sheeted for commission o sion of aforementioned offences. Fe s. Feeling aggrieved from the fact that they have be ave been charge-sheeted under Secti r Section 307 of IPC as well, this petition has been f been filed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for It is el for the petitioners that they have been falsely impli implicated in this case. The ingredie gredients for commission of offence punishable under under Section 307 of IPC are not at a The ot at all attracted against them. The injuries which wer ch were sustained by the complainant ainant have been opined to be simple in nature. There here is no material on record to sho to show that the petitioners had any intent to cause the death of the victim or any y so r any knowledge that the injury so sustained could ha uld have caused his death. The injurie rt of injuries were on the non-vital part of AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O (O&M) 3 the body. The m The medical evidence does not sup ot support the allegation as to the commission of of of offence punishable under Section ection 307 of IPC. The petitioners were not even nam

en named in the FIR. The allegation gations as levelled against them are general and vague vague in nature. While framing the 7 of g the charges under Section 307 of IPC, the learned T rned Trial Court did not take all these p It is, these points into consideration. It is, therefore, argued t gued that the impugned order is liable nt to liable to be set aside to the extent to which charge und ge under Section 307 of IPC has b has been framed and the revision petition deserves t erves to be accepted.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel Per c s no unsel has argued that there is no illegality or infirm infirmity in the impugned order. The . The petitioners in connivance with each other had vo had voluntarily caused injuries with with blunt as well as sharp-edged weapons upon the on the person of the complainant wit nt with an intent to cause his death after wrongfully r fully restraining him and also crimin t the criminally intimidated him. At the stage of framing aming of charge, the trial court urt was required to consider the probabilities of the s of the case and not to conduct a mini a mini-trial. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned pugned order does not warrant any i any interference by this Court and deserves to be uph be upheld.

6. This Court has heard the rival submis This C ubmissions made by learned counsel for the parties at co es at considerable length and has gone s gone through the record.

7. Before delving into the correctn Befo rrectness of the impugned order whereby the learn learned Trial Court has framed char IPC d charge under Section 307 of IPC alongwith other S ther Sections, this Court considers it ers it necessary to reiterate the well settled proposition osition of law pertaining to framing of f this ing of charges and the scope of this AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O (O&M) 4 Court to interfere erfere under Sections 397 and 401 of C 01 of Cr.P.C. which are pari materia to Section 438 and 38 and 442 of BNSS.

8. In this context, reference can first In th n firstly be made to a celebrated pronouncement o ent of Hon’ble Supreme Court cit Vs. urt cited as ‘Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar S ar Samel, (1979) 3 SCC 4’ wherei herein the following principles had been laid down w wn while dealing with the question o 227 stion of discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. or fram r framing of charge under Section 228 ion 228 of Cr.P.C. The relevant para is reproduced as u d as under :-

10. “

0. “Thus, on a consideration of the ve, f the authorities mentioned above, he following principles emerge: the fo

1. Th . That the Judge while considering ering the question of framing the harges under Section 227 of the Cod Code has the undoubted power to ift and weigh the evidence for the sift a the limited purpose of finding out hether or not a prima facie case ase against the accused has been ade out.

2. W . Where the materials placed befo before the Court disclose grave uspicion against the accused wh which has not been properly xplained the Court will be fully just justified in framing a charge and roceeding with the trial.

3. Th . The test to determine a prima faci facie case would naturally depend pon the facts of each case and it is it is difficult to lay down a rule of niversal application. By and large large, however, if two views are qually possible and the Judge is e is satisfied that the evidence roduced before him while giving r ng rise to some suspicion but not rave suspicion against the accused, sed, he will be fully within his right o discharge the accused. to dis

4. Th . That in exercising his jurisdiction tion under Section 227 of the Code he Judge, which under the pres the J present Code is a senior and AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O (O&M) 5 xperienced court cannot act mer a merely as a Post Office or a outhpiece of the prosecution, bu , but has to consider the broad robabilities of the case, the total e tal effect of the evidence and the ocuments produced before the C he Court, any basic infirmities ppearing in the case and so on. This This, however, does not mean that he Judge should make a roving enq the Ju enquiry into the pros and cons of he matter and weigh the evidence as the m e as if he was conducting a trial.” Emphasis supplied) (Emp

9. Reliance can also be placed upon ‘Sa Relia Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, (2010) 9 ) 9 SCC 368,’ wherei wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court rs of Court had considered the powers of Courts in respect spect of framing of charge and disch discharge and the fact that a prima facie case would d ould depend upon the facts and circum circumstances of each case and had laid down the follo e following principles :- “21. On consideration of the the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the C the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The Judge while considerin dering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr. Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidenc idence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a ot a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. out. The test to determine prima facie cases would depend upon upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials plac placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the the accused which has not been properly explained, the court w urt will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with t ith the trial. (iii) The court cannot act m a ct merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution tion but has to consider the broad AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O(O&M) 6 probabilities of the case, the t the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced be before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at e a at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the mate aterial on record, the court could form an opinion that the ac e accused might have committed offence, it can frame the char charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be pr e proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed itted the offence. (v) At the time of framing of th of the charges, the probative value of the material on record ca cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court m rt must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record cord and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the a he accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections tions 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the mate aterial and documents on record with a view to find out if the fa the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offenc se, ffence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot b not be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the pro prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to c o common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible ible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguish uished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered ered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal”. (Emphasis supplied) AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O (O&M) 7

10. It has been held time and again by th It has by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that at the stage of fra of framing of charges, the Court po urt possesses the power to sift and weigh the eviden vidence for the limited purpose of a a se of ascertaining whether or not a prima facie case h case has been made out against the a t the accused. The trial Court must exercise its judicia judicial mind to the facts of the case b case before arriving at a conclusion that there is suffic sufficient ground for proceeding ag ing against the accused. It has been observed that suc at such exercise must be undertak dertaken so as to ensure that an individual does no oes not have to be put through the h the rigors of the criminal judicial system for no faul o fault of his. The sufficiency of grou f grounds would take within its fold the nature of the e f the evidence recorded by the police olice or documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are su are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as t so as to frame charge against him. Re Reference in this regard can also be had to the obs he observations made by Apex Cour Court in ‘P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 S ) 2 SCC 398’ and ‘Vishnu Kumar mar Shukla and another Vs. State of Uttarpradesh a sh and another, AIR 2024, Supreme reme Court 90’.

11. Recently, in a case cited as ‘Shashi Recen Vs. ashikant Sharma and others Vs. State of Uttar Pra r Pradesh and another 2024(1) RCR n’ble RCR (Criminal) 67’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ob urt observed that if from the admitted tion, dmitted evidence of the prosecution, as reflected in th in the documents filed by the inve e investigating officer in the report under Section 173 n 173 Cr.P.C., the necessary ingredie gredients of an offence are not made out, then the Cour e Court is not obliged to frame charg t the charge for such offence against the accused. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O (O&M) 8

12. The ratio of law as laid down in the The r in the above cited authorities is that while framing of c ng of charge, the very foundation of f at as on of formation of opinion is that as to whether there is here is sufficient material on record to ord to ‘prima facie’ make out a case of commission of ion of an offence. The word prima faci facie when used in terms of prima facie view as far a s far as consideration on the point of rned, oint of framing charge is concerned, would certainly m inly means there being enough materi material for substance which would give rise to strong strong suspicion against the accused a used and holding of a view in favour cution. of the prosecution.

13. In view of the above discussion qua p In vie n qua proposition of law with regard to framing of char f charge, now the question that requir requires consideration by this Court is as to whether t ether the learned trial Court had right d rightly proceeded to frame charge under Section 307 on 307 of IPC against the petitioners sion, ioners or not? As per this provision, any person who d who does any act with such intention ntion or knowledge, and under such circumstances that es that, if by that act he caused death, rder, death, he would be guilty of murder, commits the offen offence of attempt to murder. For the For the purpose of an offence to fall under Section 30 ion 307 of IPC, the most materia n or aterial ingredient is intention or knowledge. It is a It is a well settled proposition of law of law that the existence of intention or knowledge to ge to cause death is the essentia sential ingredient, and the actual consequence of th e of the act done in pursuance of such It is f such intention is not material. It is also well settled ettled that to justify conviction und it is n under Section 307 of IPC, it is sufficient that ther at there is an intent coupled with some reof. h some over act in execution thereof. It is not essential ential that actual injury capable of ca cted. of causing death must be inflicted. This section make makes a distinction between the act o any. e act of accused and its result, if any. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O (O&M) 9 The Court is requi s required to see whether the act, irres t, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention tion or knowledge and under the n the the circumstances mentioned in the provision. Though hough, use of dangerous weapons incl t not including firearm per se might not constitute an offen n offence under Section 307 of IPC b s the IPC but at the same time, it is the intention, with w ith which the weapon is used, tha that would matter. To establish offence under this is section, there need not be a gra grave injury but if the act is done endangering the li the life of the victim, the rigors of th ly be of this section would definitely be attracted.

14. In the instant case, the allegations ar In the ons are that the petitioners and their companions had g had given injuries by striking blows an. blows with sticks and with kirpan. The medico-legal legal report of the complainant has t has been placed on record which shows that he had he had sustained as many as 07 injur s an 7 injuries. The injury No.1 was an incised wound app nd approximately 5 X 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm 1.5 cm on the right parieto temporal of scalp with cle h clean margins, whereas injury No.3 n the No.3 was a lacerated wound on the index finger of le r of left hand. Several bruises in cy in cylindrical shape has also been found on his pers is person. Undoubtedly, the injuries njuries so sustained have not been opined to be griev grievous in nature, however, as discu se of s discussed above for the purpose of Section 307 of IP of IPC, it is not essential that injury injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficie sufficient under the ordinary circum f the ircumstance to cause death of the person.

15. The injury No.1 was obviously on The i f the ly on vital part of the body of the petitioner i.e. on t e. on the right parieto temporal region region. The victim might not have sustained any grie y grievous injury. But by taking int hat a ng into consideration the fact that a AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O (O&M) 10 sword was used to used to cause that injury, it is prima f ma facie sufficient to presume that the intention of th of the petitioners was to cause death death. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the mate e material available on record, this Cou is Court is of the considered opinion that the nature of t re of the weapons used on the vital pa ital part of the body and the manner in which the victim e victim was assaulted, are circumstan g the mstances prima facie disclosing the requisite intention ention or knowledge attributable to the t the to the petitioners so as to attract the provisions of Sect f Section 307 of IPC. The contention ention regarding absence of grievous or life-threatening tening injury pales into insignificanc f the ificance at this stage in view of the settled legal pos l position that the intention behin behind the act is of paramount consideration. At n. At the stage of framing of charge, is to harge, only a prima facie view is to be formed on the on the basis of material on record a n of cord and a detailed appreciation of evidence is neithe neither warranted nor permissible. T ality, ble. This Court finds no illegality, perversity or juris r jurisdictional error in the impugned pugned order passed by the learned Trial Court warr t warranting interference in exercis tion. exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the ly, the present petition, being devoid o void of merit, is hereby dismissed.

12.05.2026 Amit Sharma JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: oned:- Yes/No es/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No (MANISHA BATRA) (MA AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.