Dismissed

Praveen Rathor S/O Ramesh Chand Rathor v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC30 May 2023CRLAS/424/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal appeals against an order framing charges for attempted murder, conspiracy, and atrocities under the SC/ST Act. The court held that the trial court relied on a specific order requiring hearing opportunities which was recorded in the file and not challenged, and clarified that mini-trials are impermissible at the charge framing stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeals dismissed; order of charge framed by the trial court affirmed.

Praveen Rathor S/O Ramesh Chand Rathor Vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 483/2022

¶3

Anita W/o Late Shri Chetan Prakash Meena, R/o Housing Board Colony, At Present Gayatri Colony, Ps Kotwali Jhalawar.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

Shri Mahadev Meena S/o Dhulilal, R/o Indraprasth Colony, Ward No. 3, Ramganjmandi, District Kota Rural.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 424/2022

¶11

Praveen Rathor S/o Ramesh Chand Rathor, R/o Near School Mangalpura Jhalawar Police Station Kotwali Distt. Jhalawar Raj (At Present Confined In Distt. Jail Jhalawar)

¶12

----Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

Mahadev Meena Son Of Shri Dholi Lal Meena, Resident Of Indraprasth Colony, Ward No. 3, Ramganjmandi, Kota (Rajasthan)

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Mr.	S.K. Sharma S.B. Gautam and
	Mr.	Sushil Pujari
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	M.K. Sheoran, PP
	Mr.	S.A. Chopdar
	Mr.	G.S. Tanwar

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶19

Order

¶20

Date of Reserve:-	25/05/2023
Date of Pronouncement:-	30/05/2023

¶21

(2 of 5) [CRLAS-483/2022]

¶22

Aforesaid appeals were preferred aggrieved from order of charge dated 04.02.2022 in Sessions Case No. 129/2018 passed by learned Special Judge [SC/ST (POA) Act Cases), Jhalawar whereby charge under Sections 307, 120B and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act was framed against present appellants.

¶23

Learned counsels for appellants submitted that without affording any opportunity of hearing, charges were framed on 04.02.2022. He further submitted that this is a cryptic order and passed without assigning any reason and same is contrary to Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that here, in this case the first report clearly indicated that injured Chetan Prakash while claiming loss in damage to scooty made a declaration that on 05.01.2018 around 2:00 p.m. on Kota road when two wheeler was driven by him at speed of 50 km/hour then he was slipped due to sudden appearance of cow and had a collusion with rock and tree and hit by other vehicle behind him. He further submitted that after 6 months, all of sudden on 16.06.2018 FIR No.374/2018 was registered under Sections 307 and 120B IPC wherein it was alleged that present appellants after hatching a conspiracy with other accused in the matter tried to kill son of complaint. He further submitted that in this incident, son of complainant did not suffered any injury and this is a case wherein without any reason report was registered after 6 months. He further submitted that the sequence of events and the incident clearly indicated that the matter was registered after a long delay and learned trial court without considering each and every aspect had proceeded to frame charges. He further submitted that not a single piece of evidence is available on record to establish a

¶24

[CRLAS-483/2022]

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

conspiracy between present appellants and other accused. He further submitted that no other eye-witness was available on spot and the report was registered despite contrary version of deceased. He further submitted that to frame a charge, learned trial court had to consider the entirety of facts but learned trial court had failed to consider the entire circumstances of the facts. At last he submitted that principles of law were not followed and no material is available to justify the charge. He further submitted on behalf of appellant- Anita that she is from ST community and charge under section SC/ST (POA) Act was not required to be framed against her.

¶27

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that both appellants after hatching a conspiracy as they were in affair with each other had murdered son of complainant and during investigation this fact was brought to notice by learned counsel that on earlier occasion they had made attempts to kill the deceased, so after getting the knowledge of information, FIR was lodged. He further submitted that there were sufficient grounds to proceed therefore learned trial court had not committed any error in framing charge against present appellants.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶29

A perusal of order clearly indicated that the charge against present appellants were framed on 04.02.2022 but the order further indicated that the charges were framed in pursuant to order dated 20.09.2019. After this order, again on 11.02.2022

¶30

[CRLAS-483/2022]

¶31

(4 of 5)

¶32

charges against remaining two accused was also framed and that too in pursuance of order dated 20.09.2019, meaning thereby that on 20.09.2019 there was same order to frame the charge but none of the appellant had filed aforesaid order dated 20.09.2019. Herein trial is going to be conducted under Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C., and Section 228 Cr.P.C. clearly provides for an opportunity of hearing to accused before proceeding to frame charge. The order dated 04.02.2022 clearly indicated that charge was framed in pursuant to order dated 20.09.2019 and the order dated 20.09.2019 was neither produced nor challenged. Therefore this court cannot agree with the submissions of learned counsel for appellants that opportunity was not afforded to appellants.

¶33

As regard to delay in the matter is concerned, the submissions and record indicated that son of complainant Mahadev had lost his life and a separate case for offence charge under Sections 302, 364, 120-B IPC and 3(2)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act was registered as FIR No.69/2018 at P.S. Sadar, Jhalawar and during investigation this fact was brought to the notice from interrogation and investigation that on earlier occasion attempt was also made and one of the such attempt was present one. Therefore, in view of evidence came to notice later on, the present matter was registered hence reasons of delay were also justified for the purpose of charge. Otherwise also same can be considered at the time of final judgment but herein looking to nature of allegation and subsequently Chetan Prakash had lost his life therefore, other attempt made on his life were also the material fact and if any of such attempts in evidence is brought on record then the suspect can be tried.

¶34

[CRLAS-483/2022]

¶35

(5 of 5)

¶36

As regard to charge is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. Reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4, State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (1978) 1 SCR 257 and The State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) 11 SCC 191, clearly laid down that at the stage of charge, mini trial is impermissible and learned trial court is required to exercise its judicial discretion whether the case for trial has been made out by the prosecution and it is not necessary to go into depth of the matter to assess truthfulness of material brought on record by prosecution. Further the trial court is required to determine whether facts emerging from material taken on its face value discloses the existence of ingredients necessary to constitute the offence.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid, this court do not find any reason to interfere in the order of charge passed by learned trial court.

¶38

In view of the above discussion, present appeals are devoid of merits and same are liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Accordingly, present appeals are dismissed. Misc. Application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶40

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶41

PREETI VALECHA /53-54

Praveen Rathor S/O Ramesh Chand Rathor v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Rathor S/O Ramesh Chand Rathor 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Oil Corporation through Ashish Saxena S/O Shri Suresh Chand Senior Operation Manager Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Manohar Son of Brijmohan Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu Lal Son of Ramnarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Phool Chand Vs State

State of Rajasthan Vs Mangal Singh @ Mahesh Babu S/O Sonelal

Anita W/O Late Shri Chetan Prakash Meena Vs State of Rajasthan