High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges. The court rejected the plea that the order was non-speaking or lacked merit, holding that the detailed facts and injuries supported the charges of attempted murder and rioting.
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 Petition No. 369/2019
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
21/11/2019
The instant revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioners Ramswaroop and Prem Prakash for assailing the order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1., Parbatsar, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.75/2011, whereby the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 308 IPC.
Mr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that the impugned order is non-speaking and hence, cannot be sustained. He further contended that none of the injuries caused to injured Harishchandra were life threatening and as such, the ingredients
(2 of 3)
[CRLR-369/2019]
of the offence under Section 308 IPC are not made out from the admitted allegations of the prosecution. He, thus, implored the court to accept the revision and set aside the order imugned.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and pointed out that as per the allegations levelled by the injured Harishchandra in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the petitioners herein bore enmity towards him owing to previous litigation. He was going towards his field on foot. The accused persued him in two vehicles. He was accosted by the accused persons, who were armed with dangerous weapons like iron rods etc. All the accused belaboured him and brutally assaulted him by their weapons, which were aimed with the intention to kill, on which he parried the blows by his hands and as a result, both of his hands were fractured. Thereafter the accused also assaulted him on his legs, due to which he got fractures on his legs as well.
The injury report of Harishchandra as available with the challan papers indicates that he received no less than 8 injuries on his body. The x-ray report reveal that there were fractures in the left upper and lower 1/3rd of tibia and fibula bones. Hence, the injury Nos.1 and 2 were opined to be grievous in nature. In addition thereto, there were fractures of upper 1/3 radius and ulna bones. There was also a fracture of metacarpal bone of the right hand. Hence, the injuries Nos.6 and 8 were also opined to be grievous in nature.
Manifestly, considered in light of the statement of the injured under Section 161 CrPC, it is clear that the accused aimed the blows of iron rods held by them on the victim with the intention of killing him. The victim managed to save himself by
(3 of 3)
[CRLR-369/2019]
putting his hands forward, as a result whereof, he got multiple fractures on his hands. Brutal assault continued even thereafter and the accused turned their attention on the legs of the victim causing four fractures. The order framing charge is a detailed order and cannot be termed to be a non-speaking one by any stretch of imagination.
In view of the above discussion, this court is of the firm opinion that the ingredients of the offence under Section 308 IPC are definitely made out against the accused petitioners and the trial court was perfectly justified in framing charges against them in the above terms while discussing in detail the facts and circumstances available on record. The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference. Hence, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
198-Pramod/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order framing charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 308 IPC is non-speaking and requires setting aside.
Whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 308 IPC are made out given the injuries sustained by the victim.
Whether there is any infirmity in the trial court's detailed discussion of facts warranting interference.
Ramswaroop S/o Pukhraj
Prem Prakash S/o Surajbhan
State Of Rajasthan
Sahi Ram S/o Shri Harish Chandra
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
