In a revision petition challenging an order framing charges for assault and hurt, the single-judge bench dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order called for no interference based on the injury report and the injured's statement.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 92 / 2017
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nawab Ali Rathore Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, P.P.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment
07/12/2017
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 09.11.2016 whereby charges were ordered to be framed against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case. No offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be said to have been committed by the petitioners.
Learned State counsel on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
In the present case, injured Hari Prakash Soni had suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. Injured Hari Prakash Soni has
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-92/2017]
suffered ten injuries on different parts of his body. As per the medical opinion, injury on the little finger of the injured has been declared grievous in nature, whereas the remaining injuries were declared simple in nature.
A perusal of the statement of injured recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reveals that the petitioners and their co-accused had attacked the injured while armed with weapons. Injured has further stated that the accused had inflicted injuries on different parts of his body. In the meantime, Omprakash, Vikas Kumar and Jitendra reached the spot and the accused fled away otherwise, they would have inflicted more injuries on his person.
After thorough investigation of the case, challan has been presented against the petitioners.
Keeping in view the number of injuries suffered by the injured and his statement recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Trial Court rightly ordered the framing of the charges against the petitioners under Section 341, 323, 324, 325 and 308 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, impugned order calls for no interference. Petitioner would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to them during trial before the Trial Court. Anything said above, will have no bearing on the merits of the case at the time of decision of the trial.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
S.Kumawat/D-102
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order framing charges under Sections 308, 323, 324, 325 and 341 IPC requires interference.
Vishnu S/o Shri Ram Kalyan B/c Gurjar
Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Ram Kalyan B/c Gurjar
State of Rajasthan
Hari Prakash S/o Ramesh Chand
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
