Dismissed

Suresh Yadav S/O Shri Nathmal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Oct 2023CRLR/158/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged the framing of a charge under Section 304 IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder arising from a road accident causing death. The High Court observed that the evidence indicated intentional or knowledgeable conduct rather than mere rash negligence, thereby justifying the trial court's action in framing the charge under Section 304 IPC instead of

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed.

Suresh Yadav S/O Shri Nathmal Yadav Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:41364]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 158/2022

¶4

Suresh Yadav S/o Shri Nathmal Yadav, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Siroh, Dhani Balala, Tehsil Khetari, District Jhunjhunu Presently Residing At Plot No. 58, Ram Nagar, Vaidhji Ka Choraha, Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

Hari Singh S/o Shri Prathvi Singh, Resident Of H.no. 55, Saraswati Nagar, Vaidhji Ka Choraha, Niwaru Road, Kardhani, Jaipur Rajasthan (complainant)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Mahla, PP Dr. Shivendra Singh Rathore

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

17/10/2023

¶14

Instant revision petition is preferred aggrieved from order dated 01.12.2021 in Sessions Case No.5/2021 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II.

¶15

Learned counsel for accused-petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition have submitted that due to animosity a false report was registered by the complainant wherein for a small road accident allegation of murder was levelled. He further submitted that despite his legal representations, the police under the influence has filed charge-sheet under Section 304 IPC. He further submitted that the evidence collected by police clearly indicate that all of sudden a 7 years old boy came vehicle and

[2023:RJ-JP:41364]

[CRLR-158/2022]

(2 of 4)

unfortunately he sustained injuries and resulting in his death. He further submitted that nowhere it was established that the incident has taken place with intention or knowledge, therefore, charge under Section 304 IPC cannot be framed against the petitioner. He specifically referred the statement of witnesses which indicate that the neighbours and other persons were envious from ownership of 4 vehicles by the petitioner. He also submitted that not a single iota of evidence is available which indicate that with premeditated plan present petitioner has committed culpable homicide. He also submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that offence under Section 304 A IPC was made out and nothing more than this.

¶20

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that the evidence on record is sufficient to justify the charge under Section 304 IPC. He also submitted that on a small road, the petitioner drove the vehicle in excessive speed with knowledge that the area is residential and children used to play on roads. He also submitted that as a result of this accident even the electricity pole was damaged by the petitioner, therefore, the charge under Section 304 IPC was well justified.

¶21

Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 5. On 23.09.2020, complainant Hari Singh filed a report against present petitioner and an FIR No.628/2020 was registered at Police Station Kardhani under Section 302 IPC. After investigation police had filed charge-sheet under Section 304 IPC and learned

¶22

(3 of 4) [CRLR-158/2022]

¶23

[2023:RJ-JP:41364]

¶24

trial Court after a detailed order framed charge under Section 304 IPC.

¶25

As regard to stage of charge is concerned Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors. reported in (2023) 7 SCC 633 while relying upon judgment of Hon’ble Suprem Court in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398, State of Karnataka Lokayukta Vs. M.R. Hiremath reported in (2019) 7 SCC 515, State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap reported in (2021) 11 SCC 191 and State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Dr. Maroti S/o Kashinath Pimpalkar reported in (2023) 4 SCC 298 observed that at stage of charge, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex-facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. At the stage of charge probative value of the material has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the material would not warrant a conviction. Further, at the stage of charge, the Court is not required to hold a mini trial and go into truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced by the prosecution which is subjected matter of trial.

¶26

In case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of 304A and 304 of IPC and further

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JP:41364]

[CRLR-158/2022]

held that Section 304A IPC is limited to rash and negligent acts which cause death but fall short of culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thus, to attract Section 304A IPC, the evidence must be causing death due to rash and negligent act.

¶31

Herein, when we consider the evidence on record, the fact is quite clear herein the evidence on record indicated intention or knowledge of petitioner while committing the act. The complainant and other supportive witnesses have clearly stated that the act of petitioner was deliberate and committed with intention to murder. Herein assuming the defence of petitioner, even then the place of incident was residential area and the act was within knowledge of a prudent man.

¶32

Therefore, looking to evidence on record. We can certainly say that the evidence is not for rash and negligent act rather it is for act committed with knowledge or intention. In view of aforesaid, learned trial Court has not committed any error while framing charge under Section 304 IPC on the basis of material on record. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits.

¶33

As a result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶34

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶35

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶36

Arun/478

Suresh Yadav S/O Shri Nathmal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Yadav S/O Shri Nathmal Yadav 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

Makkhan Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ramratan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Beena Devi W/O Shri Jagdish Saini B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalita Devi W/O Shri Pawan Tailor Vs State of Rajasthan

Maharaj Singh S/O Fooliram Gurjar Vs Sukhveer Singh S/O Man Singh Gurjar

Smt Meenal Jain Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp