Dismissed

Ramswaroop @ Bhoja and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC24 Jan 2017CRLR/113/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal revision petition assailing order framing charges of culpable homicide attempt (308 IPC) and grievous hurt (308/34 IPC). Bench held that intent inferred from FIR and victim statement was sufficient prima facie despite simple injuries.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order framing charges under Sections 308, 323, and 34 IPC upheld.

Ramswaroop @ Bhoja and Anr. Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 113 / 2017

¶3

1. Ramswaroop @ Moja S/o Chandaram B/c Meena, R/o Khajane Walo Ki Dhani, Gordhan Nagar, PS Sanganer Jaipur.

¶4

2. Tarachand @ Taraya S/o Kaluram B/c Meena, R/o Khajane Walo Ki Dhani, Gordhan Nagar, PS Sanganer Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioners/Accused

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Khandelwal

¶10

Public Prosecutor : Ms. Sonia Shandilya

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶12

Judgment

¶13

24/01/2017

¶14

Petitioners/Accused Ramswaroop @ Moja and Tarachand @ Taraya preferred this Revision Petition assailing the impugned order dated 14.10.2016 passed by Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 19, Sanganer, Jaipur whereby Learned Court below ordered to frame charges punishable under Sections 323 and 308 IPC against petitioner Manoj Kumar Meena and Sections 323 and 308/34 IPC against petitioners/accused Tarachand @ Taraya and Ramswaroop @ Moja and framed charges accordingly.

¶15

(2 of 7)

¶16

[CRLR-113/2017]

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that complainant Govardhan Meena submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur (East) stating therein :-

¶18

“ lsok esa Jheku Fkkuk vf/kdkjh Fkkuk lkaxkusj t;iqj fo"k; fjiksVZ ntZ djkus gsrq egksn; fuosnu gS fd esjk NksVk HkkbZ jkefd’kksj mQZ xqYyq vkt lqcg Hkkjr iSVªksy iEi ij eksVjlkbZfdy esa gok Hkjok jgk FkkA rHkh vpkud gekjs nwj ds fj’rsnkj ds HkkbZ jkeLo:i mQZ Hkkstk eh.kk] fxjkZt eh.kk] txnh’k] rkjkpan] eksgu] ckcwyky] gksrhyky] lqjs’k] nhid vkfn vU; 10&15 yksx LdkfiZ;ks xkMh ua- vkjts&02&;w,&1993 lQsn jax dkys f’k’ks rFkk ,d vYVks xkMh ua vkjts14&lhMh&5274 esa vk;s vkSj jkefd’kksj dks tku ls ekjus ds fy, rkcM rksM okj dj cqjh rjg ls t[eh dj fn;kA jkefd’kksj dks tku ls ekjus ds fy, yksgs ds lfj;s ls okj fd;k ftls cpkus ds fy, jkefd’kksj us gkFkksa ls jksdk rks gkFk vkSj iSj esa lfj;k ?kkSal fn;kA mlds ckn ;s lHkh yksx tkrs&tkrs Hkkxrs le; jkeLo:i mQZ ekstk dh lksus dh pSu ,d rksys dh pSu Nhu yh vkSj fxjkZt vkSj rkjkpan us ilZ ls 10]000@& :i;s Fks] oks Nhu ys x;s] fjiksVZ ntZ djus dh d`ik djsA”

¶19

On the aforesaid report FIR No. 810/2014 under Section 143, 308, 323 and 379 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation police

¶20

(3 of 7)

¶21

[CRLR-113/2017]

¶22

submitted charge sheet against the present petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 308 and 323 IPC. Since the offence under Section 308 IPC is triable by Sessions, therefore Learned Magistrate committed the case to Court of Sessions. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 19, Sanganer, Jaipur after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and Counsel for the accused found that there is sufficient ground for framing charge for offences under Sections 323 and 308 IPC against petitioner Manoj Kumar Meena and 323, 308/34 IPC against present petitioners Ramswaroop @ Moja and Tarachand @ Taraya which is assailed in this Revision Petition by the petitioners/accused Ramswaroop @ Moja and Tarachand @ Taraya.

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Sumit Khandelwal submits that the allegations levelled in FIR are exaggerated, complainant alleged in FIR regarding snatching of golden chain and Rs. 10,000/- which was found false during investigation. He submits that as per injury report of injured Ramkishore @ Gullu, there are only seven injuries of blunt weapon and all were found simple in nature, therefore it can be presumed that there is no intention to commit culpable homicide not

¶24

(4 of 7)

¶25

[CRLR-113/2017]

¶26

amounting to murder of injured Ramkishore. He submits that witnesses in their respective statements wrongly stated that intention of accused persons was to kill Ramkishore. As per FIR, there were about 15 persons who attacked, but during investigation this fact was also found false, only 3 persons were charge-sheeted, if 15 persons attacks at a person armed with deadly weapons then there should be atleast grievous injuries on vital part of the body of the injured but no injury is there on the vital part of the body of the injured, even there is not a grievous hurt, therefore it cannot be said that intention of petitioners was to commit death of Ramkishore, without considering all these facts Learned Trial Court wrongly framed charge under Section 308, 308/34 IPC against the petitioners, therefore to that extent this Revision Petition may be allowed and petitioners may be discharged from the charge of Section 308, 308/34 IPC.

¶27

Per Contra Ms. Sonia Shandilya Learned PP appearing on behalf of respondent/State supported the impugned order and submitted that for framing charge under Section 308 IPC, prima facie intention of accused and their act is to be seen and that can be gathered from the material available on record. She submits that in FIR,

¶28

(5 of 7)

¶29

[CRLR-113/2017]

¶30

complainant clearly stated that accused with intention to commit death of Ramkishore accused persons tried to inflict injury on head of injured but he saved it through his hands, therefore the injuries were sustained on his hands and legs. She submits that statement of injured Ramkishore are also clear on this point. She further submits that at the stage of charge minute scrutiny of material available on record is not necessary. Court has to see only whether there is sufficient ground to proceed for trial and the material available on record is prima facie sufficient to proceed for trial against the petitioners/accused for offence under Sections 308, 308/34 IPC also therefore, this Revision Petition may be dismissed.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Sumit Khandelwal and Learned PP Ms. Sonia Shandilya and perused the impugned order as well as material available on record.

¶32

It is true that none of the injury of the injured Ramkishore @ Gullu is grievous in nature, there are seven injuries which are simple in nature. For the offence under Section 308 IPC, Court has to see whether there is any attempt of accused to commit culpable homicide. The

¶33

(6 of 7)

¶34

[CRLR-113/2017]

¶35

culpable homicide is defined in Section 299 of IPC which reads as follows:-

¶36

“Culpable homicide.- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with theintention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.”

¶37

Here in the case in hand, in FIR complainant clearly stated that :-

¶38

“ rHkh vpkud gekjs nwj ds fj’rsnkj ds HkkbZ jkeLo:i mQZ Hkkstk eh.kk] fxjkZt eh.kk] txnh’k] rkjkpan] eksgu] ckcwyky] gksrhyky] lqjs’k] nhid vkfn vU; 10&15 yksx LdkfiZ;ks xkMh uavkjts&02&;w,&1993 lQsn jax dkys f’k’ks rFkk ,d vYVks xkMh ua vkjts14&lhMh&5274 esa vk;s vkSj jkefd’kksj dks tku ls ekjus ds fy, rkcM rksM okj dj cqjh rjg ls t[eh dj fn;kA jkefd’kksj dks tku ls ekjus ds fy, yksgs ds lfj;s ls okj fd;k ftls cpkus ds fy, jkefd’kksj us gkFkksa ls jksdk rks gkFk vkSj iSj esa lfj;k ?kkSal fn;kA ”

¶39

Injured Ramkishore in his police statements also stated that :-

¶40

(7 of 7)

¶41

[CRLR-113/2017]

¶42

“ ;s lHkh yksx mrjs vkSj tku ls ekjus dh uh;r ls esjs

¶43

Åij rkcMrksM ikbZiksa o lfj;ksa ls geyk dj fn;k eSaus gkFkksa ls cpko fd;k rks esjk gkFk QV x;k fQj Hkh eSa flj dks cpkrk jgk ftlls esjs iwjs 'kjhj ij xaHkhj pksVsa vk;h gSaA ”

¶44

Therefore from the statement of complainant and injured Ramkishore @ Gullu prima facie there is sufficient material to infer intention of accused persons regarding attempt to commit culpable homicide. Considering all these facts, Learned Court below framed charges against the present petitioners as aforesaid which doesn’t require any interference. There is no merit in this Revision Petition, therefore the same is dismissed.

¶45

Stay Application also stands dismissed.

¶46

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.

¶47

Charu 78

Ramswaroop @ Bhoja and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramswaroop @ Bhoja and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Omprakash and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board Vs Asst Provident Fund Commi

Smt Ruksar Bano and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sitaram Bagda Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rameshwar Prasad Jatav Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sharif Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.