In a criminal revision petition challenging an order of framing charges under IPC Sections 308, 323, and 341, the Rajasthan High Court observed that prima facie evidence of the petitioners' involvement in the crime was available on record and dismissed the petition.
Criminal revision petition and stay petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1029 / 2016
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R Upadhyay, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
07/04/2017
This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.23/2014 whereby the trial court has ordered for framing charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 308 in alternate 308/34, 323 in alternate 323/34 and 341 IPC.
(2 of 4)
[CRLR-1029/2016]
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the complaint filed by one Ajay Singh specific allegation of inflicting injury on the head of the injured-Sunil was levelled against Jitendra Gahlot and not against the accused petitioners. It is also contended that the eye witnesses of the alleged incident namely Ajay Singh and Bhanu Pratap Singh have also stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the injury on the head of injured-Sunil was inflicted by Jitendra and Praveen Gahlot. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after thorough investigation, police has not named Jitendra Gahlot and Praveen Gahlot as accused and filed charge-sheet against the petitioners only, though no evidence is available against them. It is argued that the trial court without taking into consideration of this aspect of the matter has illegally ordered for framing of charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 308 in alternate 308/34, 323 in alternate 323/34 and 341 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that as per the injury report of injured-Sunil, he has received seven injuries in all, however, none of the injuries were grievous or dangerous to life and all the injuries are simple in nature, therefore the trial court has erred in framing charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 308 in alternate 308/34 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has thereafter prayed that the impugned order may kindly be quashed and the petitioners be discharged from the offences framed against them vide impugned order.
(3 of 4)
[CRLR-1029/2016]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has stated that the trial
court has not committed any illegality in framing charges against the petitioners vide impugned order as the prima facie evidence of involvement of the petitioners in commission of crime is available on record. Learned Public Prosecutor has therefore prayed that no interference is required and the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order as well as the record of the trial court.
Witness Ajay singh has stated that Jitendra Gahlot, Praveen Bhardwaj and Ankit Bhardwaj has forceably took the injured-Sunil in the street, where Anwar, Ghanshyam and Padam and seven other persons have started beating him. He has further stated that Jitendra has inflicted injury by an iron rod on the head of Sunil and the petitioner No.1 Ankit Bhardwaj has also inflicted two and three injuries. It is further stated that when Bhanu Pratap trying to intervene, he was also assaulted. It is further stated that Anwar and Medi also inflicted injuries with a base ball. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the witnesses Ajay Singh, Bhanu Pratap and Sunil have specifically stated that the petitioners Ankit Bhardwaj, Anwar and Padam had inflicted injuries on the body of Sunil.
It is noticed that the police after thorough investigation has found involvement of the petitioners only in commission of crime and has not found the involvement of other persons named in the FIR and named in the statement of the witnesses. The recovery of weapons has also been affected from the petitioners, which were
(4 of 4)
[CRLR-1029/2016]
used in commission of crime. It is also to be noticed that out of seven injuries on the body of injured-Sunil, three injuries are on the fore head, though, the injuries are simple in nature but it cannot be ignored that the said injuries are on the vital part of the body.
After carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in framing charges against the petitioners vide impugned order when the prima facie evidence of involvement of the petitioners in commission of crime is available on record.
Hence, there is no force in this criminal revision petition and
the same is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Gaurav
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court illegally framed charges against the petitioners despite allegations against others in the FIR.
Whether the criminal revision petition challenging the order of framing of charges is maintainable.
ANKIT KUMAR
ANWAR @ ANU
PADAM SINGH
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
AJAY SINGH
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
