Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh Ans Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026
CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
242
CRR No. 1118 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.04.2026
Jagtar Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.
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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.04.28 09:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) -2-
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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.04.28 09:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) -3-
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 Section of 307 of IPC have not been attracted at all.
While framing charge under this section, the learned trial Court did not apply
its judicious mind. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the
impugned order be set aside to the extent to which charge under Section 307
of IPC has been framed and the petitioner be discharged of the said offence.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The allegations levelled against
the petitioners make out a prima facie case for commission of offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The petitioners, in furtherance of their
common intention, had opened an assault upon the complainant. They had
caused injury on the head of the victim/complainant. The same could have
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.04.28 09:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) -4-
been proved fatal resulting into his death. Injuries so received by the victim
might not have been opined to be dangerous to life but that does not mean that
no attempt to cause death of the victim/complainant had made been made by
the petitioners. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order does not warrant
any interference and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
8. Before delving into the correctness of the impugned order
whereby the learned trial Court had passed order for framing charges under
Sections 307 read with Section 149 of IPC along with other sections, this
Court considers it necessary to reiterate the well settled proposition of law
pertaining to the framing of charges and the scope of this Court to interfere
under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.
9. In this context, reference can firstly be made to a celebrated
pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited as ‘Union of India Vs.
Prafulla Kumar Samel, (1979) 3 SCC 4′ wherein the the following principles
had been laid down while dealing with the question of discharge under
Section 227 of Cr.P.C. or framing of charge under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. The
relevant para is reproduced as under:-
10. “Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned
above, the following principles emerge:
1. That the Judge while considering the question of framing
the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against the accused has been made out.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.04.28 09:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) -5-
2. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained the Court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
3. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay
down a rule of universal application. By and large,
however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him while
giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within his right to
discharge the accused.
4. That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of
the Code the Judge, which under the present Code is a
senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post
Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect
of the evidence and the documents produced before the
Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so
on. This, however, does not mean that the Judge should
make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Reliance can also be placed upon ‘Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI,
(2010) 9 SCC 368,’ wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the
powers of Courts in respect of framing of charge and discharge and the fact
that a prima facie case would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case and had laid down the following principles:-
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.04.28 09:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) -6-
“21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles
emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out. The test to
determine prima facie cases would depend upon the facts
of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the court, any
basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot
be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court
could form an opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative
value of the material on record cannot be gone into but
before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial
mind on the material placed on record and must beMOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.04.28 09:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) -7-
satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was
possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record
with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom
taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this
limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected
even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution
states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense
or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused
and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end
in conviction or acquittal”.
(Emphasis supplied)
11. It has been held time and again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court possesses the power to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not
a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The trial Court
must exercise its judicial mind to the facts of the case before arriving at a
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
It has been observed that such exercise must be undertaken so as to ensure that
an individual does not have to be put through the rigors of the criminal
judicial system for no fault of his. The sufficiency of grounds would take
within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or documents
produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.04.28 09:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) -8-
circumstances against the accused so as to frame charge against him.
Reference in this regard can also be had to the observations made by Apex
Court in ‘P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398′ and ‘Vishnu
Kumar Shukla and another Vs. State of Uttarpradesh and another, AIR
2024, Supreme Court 90’.
12. The ratio of law as laid down in the above cited authorities is that
while framing of charge, the very foundation of formation of opinion is that as
to whether there is sufficient material on record to ‘prima facie’ make out a
case of commission of an offence. The word prima facie when used in terms
of prima facie view as far as consideration on the point of framing charge is
concerned, would certainly means there being enough material for substance
which would give rise to strong suspicion against the accused and holding of a
view in favour of the prosecution.
13. In view of the above discussion qua proposition of law with
regard to framing of charge, now the question that requires consideration by
this Court is as to whether the learned trial Court had rightly proceeded to
frame charge under Section 307 of IPC against the petitioners or not? As per
this provision, any person who does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if by that act he caused death, he would be
guilty of murder, commits the offence of attempt to murder. For the purpose
of an offence to fall under Section 307 of IPC, the most material ingredient is
intention or knowledge. It is a well settled proposition of law that the
existence of intention or knowledge to cause death is the essential ingredient,
and the actual consequence of the act done in pursuance of such intention is
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.04.28 09:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) -9-
not material. It is also well settled that to justify conviction under Section 307
of IPC, it is sufficient that there is an intent coupled with some over act in
execution thereof. It is not essential that actual injury capable of causing death
must be inflicted. This section makes a distinction between the act of accused
and its result, if any. The Court is required to see whether the act, irrespective
of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under the
circumstances mentioned in the provision. Though, use of dangerous weapons
including firearm per se might not constitute an offence under Section 307 of
IPC but at the same time, it is the intention, with which the weapon is used,
that would matter. To establish offence under this section, there need not be a
grave injury but if the act is done endangering the life of the victim, the rigors
of this section would definitely be attracted.
14. In the present case, as per the medico legal report, the
complainant had sustained fractures on second and fifth metacarpal bone. He
made complains of visual problems and heaviness in the head. Contusion was
found on his head temporal region and he was advised to contact eye-surgeon.
As per the record, CCTV footage showed two of the petitioners while giving
blow with a hammer on the head of the complainant. The victim might not
have sustained any grievous injury on his head but taking into consideration
the fact that the hammer was used to cause injury on his head, it prima facie
shows the intention of the petitioners to cause his death. In light of the
aforesaid facts and the material available on record, this Court is of the
considered view that the nature of the weapon used, the vital part of the body
targeted and the manner in which the assault was carried out, as reflected from
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.04.28 09:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR No. 968 of 2024 (O&M) -10-
the medico-legal report as well as the CCTV footage, prima facie disclose the
requisite intention or knowledge attributable to the petitioners so as to attract
the provisions of Section 307 of IPC. The contention regarding absence of
grievous or life-threatening injury pales into insignificance at this stage in
view of the settled legal position that the intention behind the act is of
paramount consideration. At the stage of framing of charge, only a prima facie
view is to be formed on the basis of material on record and a detailed
appreciation of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible. This Court
finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order
passed by the learned trial Court warranting interference in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of
merit, is hereby dismissed.
27.04.2024 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.04.28 09:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
