Dismissed

Lokesh Yadav and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2017CRLR/2077/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision sought quashing of charges framed under Section 308 IPC alleging attempted murder. The High Court held that intent to cause death suffices for conviction even if injuries are not dangerous to life, dismissing the plea.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision and stay application dismissed; order of Trial Court upholding charge of attempted murder stands.

Lokesh Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B.Criminal Revision No. 2077 / 2016

¶3

Lokesh Yadav S/o Shri Krashan Kumar Yadav B/c Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o House No. 20, Jagat Vihar, Jagatpura, Distt. Jaipur, PS Pratap Nagar, Rajasthan

¶4

Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Chouth Mal Meena B/c Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o House No. 20, Jagat Vihar, Jagatpura, Distt. Jaipur, PS Pratap Nagar, Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Purii

¶10

P. P. for State : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

¶12

Judgment

¶13

12/01/2017

¶14

The criminal revision has arisen out of order dated 16.09.2016 passed by Learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 64/2014 by which charges under Sections 323,341,325, and 308 read with Section 34 IPC have been framed and read over to the petitioners.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per injury report, Sudhir Nagar received injury No. 1, 2, 3, and 5 which are fractures of left patella, right 5^th metacarpal, left ulna and right mandible and thus are grievous. Rest of the

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLR-2077/2016]

¶18

injuries are simple. Other injured Uttam Kumar received 5 injuries out of which four have been found grievous and one is simple in nature. There is no medical opinion that the grievous injuries found on the body of the victims are dangerous to life. Nevertheless, Learned Trial court has directed to frame charges including under Section 308 IPC which is wrong and against law. Learned counsel also submitted that cross FIR NO. 324/2016 was registered on information of Ram Chand Meena who is brother of the petitioner No. 2 Babu Lal Meena.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

¶20

I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

¶21

According to the injury reports of Uttam Kumar and Sudhir Nagar, out of five and seven injuries inflicted respectively on each of them, four injuries have been found grievous in nature as they are fractures and rest of the injuries are simple in nature. Police has sought medical opinion from Doctor concerned. Whereupon the Doctor has opined that grievous injuries found on the body of Sudhir Kumar are grievous in nature but not dangerous to life.

¶22

As per FIR and statement of Uttam Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C., about 5-7 youths gave beating to them who were talking with each other by name Lokesh Yadav and Babu Lal Meena. The beatings were given on knee of right leg, left leg, left elbow and fingers of the hand as well as on the head. The other victim has also stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. that youths beat him on his hands and legs.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLR-2077/2016]

¶25

Beating was made by pipes and rods.

¶26

For the offences under Section 308 IPC, it is not necessary that injury inflicted must be dangerous to life in natural course. If the injury is inflicted with the knowledge that the beating given may cause death appears to be sufficient for framing a charge. Moreover, the objects, which were used in inflicting the injuries were rods and pipes and injuries were inflicted on vital parts as well as on head and jaw.

¶27

Learned Trial Court has committed no error, illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned order directing for framing the charge for offence under Section 308 IPC.

¶28

In the result, the criminal revision along with criminal miscellaneous stay application fails and is dismissed.

¶29

(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J.

¶30

Gourav/03

Lokesh Yadav and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Yadav 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

Sumer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mangi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sudhir Kumar Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mahmood @ Bhola Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mohammad Saleem Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Kamla and Ors. Vs Ramavtar Sharma and Ors.