CRR-860-2026 (O IN THE H (256) SATNAM SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Ms. R Mr. R **** MANISHA BATR 1. The against the order Judge, SAS Nagar registered under S IPC at Police Sta under Sections 12 IPC had been fram 2. Brief petition are that th recorded by the co alongwith his brot the school hours, (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH ) INGH @ SATTA AND ANR. Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Ms. Riffi Birla, Advocate for the petit Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant revision petition has b order dated 16.02.2026 passed by th Nagar (Mohali) in case arising out o nder Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 14 ce Station IT City, District SAS Nag ns 120B, 307, 324, 323, 506, 201 an n framed as against the petitioners. Brief facts of the case relevant for t that the aforementioned FIR was regis the complainant Jashandeep Singh al is brother Harshdeep Singh had gone ours, he had come out of the school JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRR-860-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.05.2026 ... Petitioners ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA e petitioners Punjab has been filed by the petitioners by the Court of Learned Sessions out of FIR No.33 dated 24.04.2024 , 148, 149, 307, 201 and 120B of S Nagar (Mohali), whereby charges 01 and 341 read with Section 34 of t for the purpose of disposal of this s registered on the basis of statement ingh alleging that on 23.04.2024, he gone to attend their school. After school and was standing at the bus- M) 2026 ners sions 2024 B of arges 4 of this ment 4, he After - AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O stand of Village B meanwhile 6-7 you attire. One of the passing through hi were accompanyin injuries on his kne the hands of one them fled away w Sections 148, 323 During the course added. The peti Challan has been p 3. Vide for commission o that they have be petition has been f 4. It is been falsely impli punishable under injuries which wer in nature. There intent to cause sustained could ha (O&M) 2 llage Bakarpur whereas his brother w 7 youths riding on some bikes reache of them struck a blow with a stick ugh him. The complainant raised alar panying that youth, also opened an ass knees, back and left leg. He also f one of them. His brother had reach way while extending threats to kill 8, 323, 341 and 506 read with Sectio course of the investigation, offence u e petitioners were arrested. Investig been presented in the Court. Vide order dated 16.02.2026, the pe sion of aforementioned offences. Fe ave been charge-sheeted under Secti been filed. It is argued by learned counsel for implicated in this case. The ingredie under Section 307 of IPC are not at a ch were sustained by the complainant here is no material on record to sho the death of the victim or any uld have caused his death. The injurie ther was inside the school. In the reached there. They were in Nihang stick which he was carrying while d alarm and then the other boys who an assault upon him thereby causing also sustained injuries with sword at reached at the spot and then all of to kill him. Initially a case under Section 149 of IPC was registered. ence under Section 307 of IPC was vestigation now stands concluded. the petitioners were charge-sheeted s. Feeling aggrieved from the fact r Section 307 of IPC as well, this el for the petitioners that they have gredients for commission of offence ot at all attracted against them. The ainant have been opined to be simple to show that the petitioners had any r any knowledge that the injury so injuries were on the non-vital part of n the ng hile who sing rd at ll of nder ered. was ded. eeted fact this have ence The mple any y so rt of AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O the body. The m commission of of were not even nam general and vague IPC, the learned T therefore, argued t which charge und petition deserves t 5. Per c illegality or infirm each other had vo weapons upon the after wrongfully r stage of framing probabilities of the that the impugned deserves to be uph 6. This C for the parties at co 7. Befo whereby the learn alongwith other S settled proposition (O&M) 3 The medical evidence does not sup of offence punishable under Section en named in the FIR. The allegation vague in nature. While framing the rned Trial Court did not take all these p gued that the impugned order is liable ge under Section 307 of IPC has b erves to be accepted. Per contra, learned State counsel infirmity in the impugned order. The had voluntarily caused injuries with on the person of the complainant wit fully restraining him and also crimin aming of charge, the trial court s of the case and not to conduct a mini pugned order does not warrant any i be upheld. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length and has gone Before delving into the correctn learned Trial Court has framed char ther Sections, this Court considers it osition of law pertaining to framing of ot support the allegation as to the ection 307 of IPC. The petitioners gations as levelled against them are g the charges under Section 307 of these points into consideration. It is, liable to be set aside to the extent to has been framed and the revision unsel has argued that there is no . The petitioners in connivance with with blunt as well as sharp-edged nt with an intent to cause his death criminally intimidated him. At the urt was required to consider the a mini-trial. Accordingly, it is urged any interference by this Court and ubmissions made by learned counsel s gone through the record. rrectness of the impugned order d charge under Section 307 of IPC ers it necessary to reiterate the well ing of charges and the scope of this the ners are 7 of It is, nt to ision s no with dged eath t the the rged and unsel order IPC well f this AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O Court to interfere to Section 438 and 8. In th pronouncement o Prafulla Kumar S been laid down w of Cr.P.C. or fram is reproduced as u 10. “ the fo 1. Th charg sift a wheth made 2. W suspi expla proce 3. Th upon unive equal produ grave to dis 4. Th the J (O&M) 4 erfere under Sections 397 and 401 of C 38 and 442 of BNSS. In this context, reference can first ent of Hon’ble Supreme Court cit ar Samel, (1979) 3 SCC 4’ wherei wn while dealing with the question o r framing of charge under Section 228 d as under :- 0. “Thus, on a consideration of the he following principles emerge: . That the Judge while considering harges under Section 227 of the Cod ift and weigh the evidence for the hether or not a prima facie case ade out. . Where the materials placed befo uspicion against the accused wh xplained the Court will be fully just roceeding with the trial. . The test to determine a prima faci pon the facts of each case and it is niversal application. By and large qually possible and the Judge is roduced before him while giving r rave suspicion against the accused, o discharge the accused. . That in exercising his jurisdiction he Judge, which under the pres 01 of Cr.P.C. which are pari materia n firstly be made to a celebrated urt cited as ‘Union of India Vs. herein the following principles had stion of discharge under Section 227 ion 228 of Cr.P.C. The relevant para f the authorities mentioned above, ering the question of framing the Code has the undoubted power to the limited purpose of finding out ase against the accused has been before the Court disclose grave which has not been properly justified in framing a charge and facie case would naturally depend it is difficult to lay down a rule of large, however, if two views are e is satisfied that the evidence ng rise to some suspicion but not sed, he will be fully within his right tion under Section 227 of the Code present Code is a senior and ria rated Vs. had 227 para ve, the to out een ave rly nd nd of are nce not ght de nd AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O exper mouth proba docum appea the Ju the m (Emp 9. Relia SCC 368,’ wherei Courts in respect facie case would d laid down the follo (O&M) 5 xperienced court cannot act mer outhpiece of the prosecution, bu robabilities of the case, the total e ocuments produced before the C ppearing in the case and so on. This he Judge should make a roving enq he matter and weigh the evidence as Emphasis supplied) Reliance can also be placed upon ‘Sa wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court spect of framing of charge and disch ould depend upon the facts and circum e following principles :- “21. On consideration of the Sections 227 and 228 of the C emerge: (i) The Judge while considerin charges under Section 227 Cr. to sift and weigh the evidenc finding out whether or not a accused has been made out. facie cases would depend upon (ii) Where the materials plac grave suspicion against the properly explained, the court w a charge and proceeding with t (iii) The court cannot act m mouthpiece of the prosecution merely as a Post Office or a , but has to consider the broad tal effect of the evidence and the he Court, any basic infirmities This, however, does not mean that enquiry into the pros and cons of e as if he was conducting a trial.” Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, (2010) 9 Court had considered the powers of discharge and the fact that a prima circumstances of each case and had the authorities about the scope of the Code, the following principles dering the question of framing the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power idence for the limited purpose of ot a prima facie case against the out. The test to determine prima upon the facts of each case. placed before the court disclose the accused which has not been urt will be fully justified in framing ith the trial. ct merely as a post office or a tion but has to consider the broad a ad the ties hat of ) 9 rs of ma had of les the er of the ma ose een ing a ad 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 documents produced be infirmities, etc. However, at roving enquiry into the pros weigh the evidence as if he was (iv) If on the basis of the mate form an opinion that the ac offence, it can frame the char conclusion is required to be pr that the accused has committed (v) At the time of framing of th of the material on record ca framing a charge the court m the material placed on record commission of offence by the a (vi) At the stage of Sections required to evaluate the mate with a view to find out if the fa at their face value disclose the constituting the alleged offenc sift the evidence as it cannot b stage to accept all that the pro even if it is opposed to c probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible suspicion only, as distinguish trial Judge will be empowered at this stage, he is not to see conviction or acquittal”. (Emphasis supplied) the total effect of the evidence and before the court, any basic at this stage, there cannot be a pros and cons of the matter and was conducting a trial. aterial on record, the court could e accused might have committed charge, though for conviction the e proved beyond reasonable doubt itted the offence. of the charges, the probative value cannot be gone into but before rt must apply its judicial mind on cord and must be satisfied that the he accused was possible. tions 227 and 228, the court is aterial and documents on record the facts emerging therefrom taken the existence of all the ingredients ffence. For this limited purpose, not be expected even at that initial prosecution states as gospel truth o common sense or the broad ible and one of them gives rise to uished from grave suspicion, the ered to discharge the accused and see whether the trial will end in nd sic e a nd uld ted the ubt lue ore on the is ord ken nts se, tial uth ad to the nd in AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O 10. It has at the stage of fra weigh the eviden prima facie case h exercise its judicia that there is suffic observed that suc individual does no system for no faul the nature of the e the Court which the accused so as t be had to the obs Kerala, (2010) 2 S of Uttarpradesh a 11. Recen State of Uttar Pra Supreme Court ob as reflected in th under Section 173 out, then the Cour accused. (O&M) 7 It has been held time and again by th of framing of charges, the Court po vidence for the limited purpose of a case has been made out against the a judicial mind to the facts of the case b sufficient ground for proceeding ag at such exercise must be undertak oes not have to be put through the o fault of his. The sufficiency of grou f the evidence recorded by the police ex facie disclose that there are su so as to frame charge against him. Re he observations made by Apex Cour ) 2 SCC 398’ and ‘Vishnu Kumar sh and another, AIR 2024, Supreme Recently, in a case cited as ‘Shashi r Pradesh and another 2024(1) RCR urt observed that if from the admitted in the documents filed by the inve n 173 Cr.P.C., the necessary ingredie e Court is not obliged to frame charg by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that urt possesses the power to sift and se of ascertaining whether or not a t the accused. The trial Court must case before arriving at a conclusion ing against the accused. It has been dertaken so as to ensure that an h the rigors of the criminal judicial f grounds would take within its fold olice or documents produced before are suspicious circumstances against Reference in this regard can also Court in ‘P. Vijayan Vs. State of mar Shukla and another Vs. State reme Court 90’. ashikant Sharma and others Vs. RCR (Criminal) 67’, the Hon’ble dmitted evidence of the prosecution, e investigating officer in the report gredients of an offence are not made charge for such offence against the that and a must sion been an icial fold efore ainst also of ate Vs. n’ble tion, eport ade t the AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O 12. The r while framing of c to whether there is of commission of facie view as far a would certainly m give rise to strong of the prosecution. 13. In vie to framing of char is as to whether t under Section 307 any person who d circumstances that commits the offen under Section 30 knowledge. It is a or knowledge to consequence of th also well settled sufficient that ther It is not essential This section make (O&M) 8 The ratio of law as laid down in the ng of charge, the very foundation of f here is sufficient material on record to ion of an offence. The word prima faci s far as consideration on the point of inly means there being enough materi strong suspicion against the accused a cution. In view of the above discussion qua p f charge, now the question that requir ether the learned trial Court had right on 307 of IPC against the petitioners who does any act with such intention es that, if by that act he caused death, offence of attempt to murder. For the ion 307 of IPC, the most materia It is a well settled proposition of law ge to cause death is the essentia e of the act done in pursuance of such ettled that to justify conviction und at there is an intent coupled with some ential that actual injury capable of ca makes a distinction between the act o in the above cited authorities is that on of formation of opinion is that as ord to ‘prima facie’ make out a case facie when used in terms of prima oint of framing charge is concerned, material for substance which would used and holding of a view in favour n qua proposition of law with regard requires consideration by this Court d rightly proceeded to frame charge ioners or not? As per this provision, ntion or knowledge, and under such death, he would be guilty of murder, For the purpose of an offence to fall aterial ingredient is intention or of law that the existence of intention sential ingredient, and the actual f such intention is not material. It is n under Section 307 of IPC, it is h some over act in execution thereof. of causing death must be inflicted. e act of accused and its result, if any. that at as case ma rned, ould vour gard ourt arge sion, such rder, fall n or ntion ctual It is it is reof. cted. any. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O The Court is requi with the intention provision. Though constitute an offen intention, with w offence under this endangering the li attracted. 14. In the companions had g The medico-legal shows that he had incised wound app of scalp with cle index finger of le found on his pers opined to be griev Section 307 of IP should be sufficie person. 15. The i petitioner i.e. on t sustained any grie (O&M) 9 s required to see whether the act, irres tion or knowledge and under the hough, use of dangerous weapons incl n offence under Section 307 of IPC b ith which the weapon is used, tha is section, there need not be a gra the life of the victim, the rigors of th In the instant case, the allegations ar had given injuries by striking blows legal report of the complainant has he had sustained as many as 07 injur nd approximately 5 X 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm h clean margins, whereas injury No.3 r of left hand. Several bruises in cy is person. Undoubtedly, the injuries grievous in nature, however, as discu of IPC, it is not essential that injury sufficient under the ordinary circum The injury No.1 was obviously on e. on the right parieto temporal region y grievous injury. But by taking int t, irrespective of its result, was done the circumstances mentioned in the including firearm per se might not IPC but at the same time, it is the that would matter. To establish grave injury but if the act is done of this section would definitely be ons are that the petitioners and their blows with sticks and with kirpan. t has been placed on record which 7 injuries. The injury No.1 was an 1.5 cm on the right parieto temporal No.3 was a lacerated wound on the in cylindrical shape has also been njuries so sustained have not been s discussed above for the purpose of injury actually caused to the victim ircumstance to cause death of the ly on vital part of the body of the region. The victim might not have ng into consideration the fact that a done n the t not s the blish done ly be their an. hich s an poral n the been been se of ictim f the f the have hat a AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-860-2026 (O sword was used to the intention of th facts and the mate that the nature of t in which the victim requisite intention provisions of Sect or life-threatening settled legal pos consideration. At be formed on the evidence is neithe perversity or juris Trial Court warr Consequently, the 12.05.2026 Amit Sharma (O&M) 10 used to cause that injury, it is prima f of the petitioners was to cause death e material available on record, this Cou re of the weapons used on the vital pa e victim was assaulted, are circumstan ention or knowledge attributable to the f Section 307 of IPC. The contention tening injury pales into insignificanc l position that the intention behin n. At the stage of framing of charge, on the basis of material on record a neither warranted nor permissible. T r jurisdictional error in the impugned t warranting interference in exercis ly, the present petition, being devoid o (MA Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:- Yes/No ma facie sufficient to presume that death. In the light of the aforesaid is Court is of the considered opinion ital part of the body and the manner mstances prima facie disclosing the to the petitioners so as to attract the ention regarding absence of grievous ificance at this stage in view of the behind the act is of paramount harge, only a prima facie view is to cord and a detailed appreciation of ble. This Court finds no illegality, pugned order passed by the learned exercise of revisional jurisdiction. void of merit, is hereby dismissed. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE oned:- Yes/No es/No that esaid inion nner g the t the vous f the ount is to n of ality, rned tion. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.