CRR/726/2025 of KARTAR SINGH ALIAS KARTAR SINGH DHANKHAR AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 20 July 2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed seeking the setting aside of the order of charge and the charge-sheet dated 03.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby charges under Sections 148, 149, 308, 323, 325, 452 and 506 of the IPC were framed against the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Sandeep son of Jogendra Singh, resident of Village Karontha, District Rohtak, lodged a complaint with the police alleging that on 25.06.2023 at about 3:00 p.m., he had an altercation with petitioner Kartar Singh son of Hoshiyar Singh, resident of Village Karontha, District Rohtak, in the fields, during which the petitioner allegedly threatened to kill the complainant and his family members. It is further alleged that at about 4:15 p.m. on the same day, Kartar Singh, along with the other co- accused, armed with their respective weapons, criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant with an intention to kill him and assaulted the ANIL KUMAR

complainant as well as his family members. As a result of the assault, the complainant sustained fractures in both his hands and suffered a head injury requiring stitches. He was initially treated at Civil Hospital, Rohtak, and thereafter at PGIMS, Rohtak. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, FIR No. 403 dated 26.06.2023 was registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that all the petitioners are family members and have been roped in by the complainant in collusion with the police with an ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant are simple in nature and do not attract the offences alleged against the petitioners.

4. Learned State counsel has filed a reply by way of an affidavit of Dalip Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.A.W., Rohtak, on behalf of the respondent-State, and the same is taken on record. As per the reply, it has been stated that in view of the seriousness of the offence and the injuries sustained by the complainant, Section 308 of the IPC was added in the present case. However, the petitioners have challenged the addition of the said offence on the ground that no case under Section 308 of the IPC is made out against them. It has further been stated that the opinion of the doctor was obtained with regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant. As per the medical opinion, Injury Nos. 1, 2 and 4 did not involve any fracture and were declared to be simple in nature, whereas Injury No. 3, pertaining to a fracture of the left fourth metacarpal bone, was declared to be grievous in nature.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their able assistance. ANIL KUMAR

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that Injury No. 3, though grievous in nature, cannot by itself be construed as an injury that was dangerous to life or indicative of an intention or knowledge on the part of the petitioners to cause the death of the complainant. Moreover, only lathis were allegedly used in the occurrence, and no sharp-edged weapon was recovered from the petitioners. In such circumstances, the essential ingredients of Section 308 of the IPC are not prima facie made out. Rather, the allegations, at the highest, disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC. It is, however, made clear that the trial Court shall be at liberty to alter or amend the charge at any stage of the trial, if warranted by the evidence brought on record, in accordance with law.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order framing charge is modified to the extent that the charge under Section 308 of the IPC is set aside and, in its place, a charge under Section 325 of the IPC shall stand framed. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. Since the offence, as modified, is triable by a Court of Magistrate, the case shall stand remitted to the competent Judicial Magistrate for trial in accordance with law.

8. Allowed accordingly.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(H.S.GREWAL)

JUDGE 20.07.2026 anil Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ANIL KUMAR