Dismissed

Devidan v. State

Rajasthan HC5 Nov 2019CRLR/850/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the trial court's order framing charges under Section 302 IPC. Upholding the trial court, the bench held that the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the deceased clearly implicated the petitioner, and thus, the framing of charges was legally correct.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition and stay petition dismissed; trial court order framed charges stands affirmed.

Devidan Vs State — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 850/2019

¶3

Devidan S/o Sh. Kalyan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Charan, R/o Dhadhariya Khurd, District Nagaur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State, Through Pp

¶7

Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Babu Singh, By Caste Charan, Resident Of Bhumbaliya Police Station Raas, District Pali.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Acharya For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhay, PP with Ms. Kamla Goswami Mr. Vinod Bhati, for respondent No.2

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Order

¶12

05/11/2019

¶13

The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur in Sessions Case No.65/2018 whereby the learned trial court framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 323, 498-A and 302 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the statement of deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which she does not mentioned about pouring of kerosene on her body by the petitioner. She herself mentioned that nobody is responsible for this fire and due to an accident she received burn injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after investigation Police submitted a charge-sheet against the

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLR-850/2019]

¶17

petitioner for offences under Sections 306, 498-A and 323 IPC but the learend trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences under Section 302 IPC, which is illegal. Therefore, the order of trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶18

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant submits that the statement of deceased recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she clearly mentioned that the petitioner poured the kerosene on her body and lit fire. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materiel available on record.

¶20

On perusal of the statement of deceased recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she clearly mentioned that the petitioner poured the kerosene on her body and lit fire. This statement has been recorded by the competent Magistrate before whom she narrated the statement, therefore there is no question to disbelieve these statements.

¶21

In these circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any error for framing the charges against the petitioner. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and no interference is called for by this Court.

¶22

The criminal revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Stay petition is also dismissed.

¶23

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶24

84-Ishan/-

Devidan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidan v. State

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

Manju Devi @ Manju Soni Vs State

Banshi Lal Mali Vs State and Ors.

Mana Ram Vs State

Parasmal Vs State and Anr.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State

Chetan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan