Remanded

Ramjeevan S/O Shri Late Sohan Lal B/C Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Dec 2021CRLR/2649/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of connected criminal revision petitions regarding framing of charges against an accused. It held that while the accused was not present at the crime scene, prima facie evidence of conspiracy existed.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to frame charges under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, and 120B IPC instead of the ones framed.

Ramjeevan S/O Shri Late Sohan Lal B/C Saini Vs State… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2649/2019

¶3

Ramjeevan S/o Shri Late Sohan Lal, R/o Little Birds Public School, Sanjay Nagar, Behind Mahila Police Station, Alwar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2376/2019

¶10

Rajendra Prasad Gupta S/o Late Shri Netram, R/o F-37, Apna Ghar, Shalimar, Alwar (Rajasthan).

¶11

----Complainant/Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

Ramjeevan Kushwah S/o Shri Sohan Lal, R/o Little World Public School, Sanjay Nagar, Behind Mahila Thana, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar District Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶16

----Accused/Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal for accused- petitioner
	Mr. Kapil Gupta for complainant- petitioner
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, PP

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS Order

¶19

15/12/2021

¶20

These revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 30.08.2019, therefore, the revision petitions are being decided by common order.

¶21

Revision Petition No.2649/2019 has been filed with following prayer :-

¶22

(2 of 5)

¶23

[CRLR-2649/2019]

¶24

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to call for the entire records of the case and further be pleased to quash and set aside the Judgment dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar, Rajasthan in Sessions Case No.16/2018 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Rakesh and Others Original Sessions Case and charges framed against the petitioner in Sessions Case State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramjeevan No.34/2019 under Section 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 read with section 34 IPC be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from all offences.

¶25

Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the petitioner”.

¶26

Revision Petition No.2376/2019 has been filed with following

¶27

prayer :-

¶28

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed, and the impugned order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar, Rajasthan in Sessions Case No.16/2018, titled as State of Rajasthan vs. Rakesh and Others may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent whereby the learned trial court discharge the accused respondent No.2 from the offence under Sections 308 and 120B I.P.C. and further directed the learned trial court to framed the charge against the accused respondent No.2 under Sections 308 and 120B of IPC also; and

¶29

Any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner”.

¶30

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan that the learned trial court has failed to consider the evidence on record and has erred in framing the charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC.

¶31

It has further been submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case against the petitioner on the basis of calldetails. As per FIR, the incident took place at about 3:30 p.m. on 16.11.2017. As per charge-sheet, record of call-details shows that the communication between the accused-Ravi Chaudhary and the

¶32

(3 of 5) [CRLR-2649/2019]

¶33

petitioner took place only four-five times. On the basis of timing as it is mentioned in the call-detail, no inference can be drawn that there was a conspiracy between the accused and the petitioner. As per the charge-sheet, no communication has been found between the petitioner and other three main accused, namely-Rakesh, Nilesh and Santosh, therefore, in the absence of positive and direct evidence, no offence of conspiracy can be made out. Hence, the petitioner is liable to be discharged. Ingredients of Section 120A of IPC are not proved. In this case, the ingredients of common intention are also not proved prima facie , hence, the charges framed against the petitioner are liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be discharged from the offence for which he has been charged. The injury report also does not reveal that the injury was on any vital part of the body, therefore, offence under Section 307 of IPC is also not made out.

¶34

Learned counsel for complainant/petitioner-Rajendra Prasad Gupta has submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of law to the extent, whereby the respondent No.2 has been discharged from the offence under Sections 308 and 120B of IPC. There is sufficient evidence on record to prima facie frame the charges against the respondent/accused No.2-Ramjeevan for offence under Sections 308 and 120B of IPC.

¶35

It is further submitted that the call-details have been placed on record according to which the accused-Ramjeevan was in contact with another accused-Ravi Chaudhary and Ravi Chaudhary called the co-accused Rakesh 66 times before and after the incident. Apart from this, there is evidence on record that witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 of

¶36

(4 of 5)

¶37

[CRLR-2649/2019]

¶38

Cr.P.C., stated that when co-accused Rakesh, Bittu and Veeru @ Nilesh were beating injured-Vivek Gupta, they were threatening that if after that day any complaint is made against Ramjeevan, then the family members would face serious consequences. Thus, the conspiracy between the co-accused Rakesh, Santosh and Nilesh and the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan is prima facie proved, therefore, charges need to be framed against the accused-Ramjeevan for offence under Sections 308 and 120B of IPC.

¶39

Heard and perused the record available on the file as well as the impugned order dated 30.08.2019.

¶40

Learned trial court has taken into consideration the evidence available on record and on the basis of material placed on record arrived at prima facie satisfaction that there was sufficient material to frame charges under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC. As per statements of injured and eyewitnesses, it has come on record that three co-accused, namely Rakesh, Santosh and Nilesh beat injured-Vivek Gupta with rod and sword and thereby, causing him injuries. The accused/petitionerRamjeevan was not present at the place of incident as per the statement of injured and other eye-witnesses. The injured and the other witnesses have stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that while the injured was beaten by the coaccused, namely Rakesh, Santosh and Nilesh, and then Rakesh threatened that if in future any complaint is made against the Ramjeevan, then serious consequences will follow. Thus, it is prima facie evident from the evidence collected during the investigation that the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan was not

¶41

(5 of 5) [CRLR-2649/2019]

¶42

present at the place of occurrence but there was prima facie evidence on record to frame charges against the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan for offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 120B of IPC.

¶43

The accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan was not present at the place of occurrence and there is no evidence on record to prima facie prove that the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan acted in furtherance of the common intention at the place of occurrence and no overt act was done by him, therefore, the learned trial court has erred in framing the charges under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 307 of IPC with the add of Section 34 of IPC but there is sufficient prima facie evidence on record, on the basis of evidence of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and call-details between the accused persons, that the petitioner-Ramjeevan conspired with other co-accused in commission of offence. Resultantly, the charges framed against the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan deserve to be modified. Trial court is directed to frame the charges against the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan for offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 120B of IPC.

¶44

Accordingly, the revision petitions are disposed of. Learned trial court is directed to modify the charges against the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan as indicated above.

¶45

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶46

Copy of this order be placed in the connected file.

¶47

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

¶48

Hemant/40-41

Ramjeevan S/O Shri Late Sohan Lal B/C Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjeevan S/O Shri Late Sohan Lal B/C Saini v. State of Rajasthan

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

Arti Rupani Wife of Shri Ashok Rupani D/O Shri Kishan Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Nitesh Rohila S/O Shri Om Prakash B/C Darji Vs Ritu Tank W/O Shri Nitesh Rohila D/O Shri Baldev Prasad B/C Darji

Gyan Singh S/O Mohar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shailendra Kumar Son of Mahesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyender @ Pintu @ Mintu S/O Shri Dharmender Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramrai @ Rairam @ Rajaram S/O Shyogi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan