Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Manga Ram vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 18 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 225/2024
Reserved on: 10.04.2026
Pronounced on: 18.04.2026
Uploaded on: 18.04.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: Full
Manga Ram
S/o Sh. Des Raj
R/o Ward No. 6, Reasi, Tehsil and
District Reasi, presently lodged in
District Jail, Reasi.
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate.
Vs
Union Territory of J&K through
Incharge/SHO Police Station,
Reasi.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
(JUDGMENT)
1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 Cr.PC (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS) seeking quashment of order
dated 31 January 2024 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi (‘the
trial Court’), whereby formal charges under Sections 302/341 IPC came to be
drawn up against the petitioner in FIR No. 255/2022 of Police Station, Reasi.
CRM(M) No. 225/2024 Page 1 of 8
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Precisely stated, the petitioner was sent up for trial allegedly for
commission of offences under Sections 302/341 IPC accusing him of committing
murder of deceased-Deepak Kumar on 6 October 2022 by inflicting the fatal blow
with a wooden stick on his head, causing grievous head injury which led to his
death while he was undergoing treatment. The deceased-Deepak Kumar was
working in a private school namely, Gurukul School and was also supplying milk
to the accused-Manga Ram (petitioner herein). On 6 October 2022 at about 7.30
p.m. when deceased after purchasing the household items from Reasi Bazar was
returning home en-route alleged to have been wrongfully restraint by the
petitioner and whereafter, inflicted blows with a wooden stick on his head and
other parts of the body causing grievous injuries. The deceased in the injured
condition was shifted to the hospital at Reasi by PW-2, Manu Devi (wife of the
deceased) and PW-3, Sandeep Kumar (complainant and brother of the deceased).
Since deceased stated to have sustained fatal blows, therefore, he was in need of
advance treatment, accordingly, he was referred to GMC Jammu, however,
despite he had undergone surgery, his condition did not improve, who finally
bade goodbye to the life due to fatal injuries on 15 January 2023, while he was
hospitalized in ICU at Government Medical College, Jammu.
3. Regarding the alleged occurrence, a FIR No. 255/2022 under Section
341/323 IPC initially, came to be registered on the basis of a written complaint
CRM(M) No.225/2024 Page 2 of 8
lodged by the brother of the deceased, i.e. PW-3, Sandeep Kumar, however, as
investigation progressed, the health condition of the deceased deteriorated.
Accordingly, at one stage, the offences under Sections 325 & 307 were also
added but finally, on completion of investigation and on the basis of material
collected, the Investigating Officer has concluded the commission of offences
under Sections 302/341 IPC and also, on presentation of challan, the trial Court
vide order dated 31 January 2024 had formally drawn up the charges against the
petitioner under Sections 302/341 IPC.
GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE AND SUBMISSIONS
4. The petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated 31 January 2024,
whereby charges are drawn up against the petitioner, on the ground that the only
allegation against the petitioner is that of wrongfully restraint and causing simple
injury to the deceased but there is no allegation that such injury was caused with
intention to kill the deceased, therefore, the charges under Section 302 IPC are
wrongly framed which is per se illegal.
5. It is further stated that the alleged injury sustained by the deceased in
the ordinary course was not sufficient to cause the death, more particularly, when
the CT Scan report reveals that neither there was fracture nor there was bleeding.
According to the petitioner, as per the narration given in the FIR, the deceased
was restraint and injury was caused to him by inflicting two blows but neither any
intention nor any motive was attributed for killing the victim.
CRM(M) No.225/2024 Page 3 of 8
6. The petitioner has also questioned the sufficiency of causing death
with the alleged weapon of offence having length of 2 feet 08 inches and further
that from the facts and circumstances, at the most, the offence under Section 304
Part-II IPC would have been framed, but the trial Court totally overlooked this
aspect of the matter and went on-to frame charges under Section 302/341 IPC.
According to the petitioner, the cause of death of the deceased is given as
“Recurrent acute on chronic SDH with complications”, which means Subdural
Hematoma, the cause of which may be due to long term use of heavy alcohol,
long term use of Aspirin, Inflammatory Drug etc., thus, there is no definite
opinion by the Doctors that the death is due to injury caused by the petitioner,
therefore, according to the petitioner, the trial Court has wrongly framed the
charges against the petitioner under Sections 302/341 IPC by totally ignoring the
material collected during investigation as well as cause of death as given in the
medical report.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, learned GA, while opposing
the petition, went on-to submit that the scope of instant proceedings is very
narrow and the Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can
neither appreciate the evidence nor can take into consideration the defence raised
by the petitioner and thus, the petition being misconceived, therefore, same may
be dismissed.
CRM(M) No.225/2024 Page 4 of 8
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered their submissions
and gone through the record.
ANALYSIS
9. At the outset, be it noted that in order to bring home the charges, the
prosecution has cited as many as 26 witnesses and by now, 02 witnesses namely,
PW-2, Manu Devi and PW-3, Sandeep Kumar have been examined so far. Both
the witnesses have prima-facie supported the prosecution story and nothing
destructive at least for the purposes of instant proceedings, appears to have
elicited by the defence.
10. The allegation of assault by the petitioner with wooden stick to the
deceased find support from the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 and also the
witnesses have further supported the prosecution story that deceased has received
head injury which had proved fatal.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
11. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure or Bhartiya Suraksha Sanhita,
the Investigating Officer (I/O) has wide powers during investigation to collect
evidence and include or alter the applicable Sections of law in the final charge-
sheet (under Section 173 Cr.PC). The charging Sections mentioned in the initial
FIR are neither frozen nor final, rather they are only based on the complainant’s
version at the time of registration of case. The I/O is duty bound to apply the
CRM(M) No.225/2024 Page 5 of 8
correct Sections based on the evidence that emerges, including the statement of
witnesses, medical report, post-mortem report etc.
12. The final charge-sheet reflects the I/O’s conclusion after full
investigation and as such, he is not statutory bound to retain every Section
mentioned in the FIR if the evidence does not support it.
13. The trial Court, while taking cognizance and framing charges, looked
at the charge-sheet and the accompanying documents including statement,
medical evidence etc. and not the original FIR. An FIR is not a proof of facts
alleged in it. It cannot independently prove or disprove that the alleged incident
occurred.
14. It has been time and again held that the FIR is merely the first
information that sets the criminal law in motion. The contents of the FIR do not
carry probative value with regard to the truth of the allegations, except for the
limited purpose of corroborating the testimony of the informant or
contradicting/impeaching the credibility of its maker, therefore, nothing wrong
can be found with the satisfaction of the I/O drawn on the basis of material
collected over the period of time during investigation.
15. Insofar as, the contention of the petitioner that there was no intention
to cause death or death was not on account of the alleged injuries sustained by the
deceased is concerned, same cannot be gone into in the proceedings under Section
482 Cr.PC as same are the disputed questions of facts, thus, these are matters for
CRM(M) No.225/2024 Page 6 of 8
the trial Court after full evidence is led, including cross-examination of the
Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem.
16. The post-mortem report explicitly opines that death was caused by
Recurrent acute on chronic SDH with complications which originated from the
assault by the accused. This medical opinion rather prima-facie constitutes
evidence of causation as the condition is a recognized medical condition in which
bleeding occurs over a pre-existing condition, frequently triggered or aggravated
by trauma such as beating. The Doctor’s opinion in the case on hand that the
alleged occurrence is the root cause is decisive at the prima-facie stage and thus,
no fault can be found, particularly, while framing the charges on the basis of
material available on record.
17. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the alleged weapon of
offence is not sufficient to cause death or there is absence of intention to cause
death is concerned, same are also devoid of merit rather is a self-defeating
argument because intention or knowledge that the alleged act is likely to cause
death is an inference drawn from the totality of the circumstances, nature of
assault, part of body targeted (head in the case on hand), force used, weapon, if
any, number of blows etc., therefore, it is not a pure question of law that can be
decided on the face of the record in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC.
18. From the above discussion, what is deducible is that all the pleas
raised by the petitioner falls within the realm of triable issues and thus, the trial
CRM(M) No.225/2024 Page 7 of 8
must take its course, whereas, the jurisdiction of the High Court at this stage,
cannot be converted into appellate or revisional jurisdiction to re-appreciate,
weigh or scrutinize the evidence on merits. Nor can this Court, at this stage,
conduct a mini trial or adjudicate upon disputed or factual issues so much so, it is
also not permissible to go beyond the prima-facie material available at the charge
framing stage.
19. In the aforesaid backdrop, no fault either of fact or of law is found to
have been made by the trial Court while passing the order dated 31 January 2024,
whereby charges have been framed for commission of offences under Sections
302/341 IPC against the petitioner on the basis of material collected during
investigation, medical report, weapon of offence and manner of assault, as such,
the petition being devoid of merit, accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM)
JUDGE
JAMMU
18.04.2026
Tarun/PS
Whether order is speaking: Yes
Whether order is reportable: Yes
Tarun Kumar Gupta
2026.04.09 10:34
CRM(M) No.225/2024
I attest to the accuracy and Page 8 of 8
integrity of this document
