Dismissed

Ramraj v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Dec 2017CRLR/106/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the dismissal of the prosecution's application to add eight respondents as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal, finding no specific overt act attributed to them despite their naming in witness statements.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Sections 397-401 CrPC dismissed; order dated 06.01.2017 upholding the Trial Court's decision.

Ramraj Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 106 / 2017

¶3

Ramraj Son of Harichand Meena, by Caste Meena, R/o Village Jola P.S. Chauth Ka Barwara District Sawai Madhopur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

Bansilal Meena, S/o Dhanna Lal, B/c Meena, R/o Bandhediya, P.S. Choth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶8

Manraj Son of Mojiram

¶9

Gamla W/o Ramraj

¶10

Resham W/o Premraj

¶11

Anita W/o Meghraj

¶12

Reena W/o Ramkhiladi

¶13

Rampati W/o Mojiram

¶14

All respondents No.3 to 8 were by Caste Meena, R/o Jola, P.S. Choth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashindra Gautam Adv.

¶17

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment

¶18

08/12/2017

¶19

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 06.01.2017 whereby application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was dismissed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents No.2 to 8 are specifically named in the FIR as well as in the statements of the witnesses during trial. Respondents No.2

¶21

(2 of 2)

¶22

[CRLR-106/2017]

¶23

to 8 were armed with weapons at the time of the occurrence.

¶24

As per the prosecution story, accused had attacked the complainant party, and as a result, eight persons had suffered injuries.

¶25

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against six accused.

¶26

Respondents No.2 to 8 were found innocent during investigation. During the pendency of the trial, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for summoning respondents No.2 to 8 as additional accused. However, the Trial Court has dismissed the said application vide order dated 06.01.2017.

¶27

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that, although, respondents No.2 to 8 have been named by the witnesses in their statements, but no specific overt act has been attributed to respondents No.2 to 8. Reasons given by the Trial Court while dismissing the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are sound reasons and call for no interference.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

S.Kumawat/D-51

Ramraj v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramraj v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Vishnu and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

State Vs Bhoora and Ors.

Bheru Lal and Ors. Vs State

M/S Flora-O-Foods Vs Director Integrated Child DEVELOPMENTandOR

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs State of Raj and Anr.