Allowed

Satish Kumar S/O Jorawar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2023CRLR/173/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition, setting aside the order framing charges under IPC Sections 325 and 308. The court held that charges were mechanically framed without sufficient material to presume dangerous injuries or intention to cause death, violating principles of framing charges under Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed, order dated 04.01.2022 set aside, matter remanded to Trial Court to frame charges after affording opportunity of hearing.

Satish Kumar S/O Jorawar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:28018]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 173/2022

¶4

Satish Kumar S/o Jorawar Singh, Resident Of Village Sanoli, Police Station Shahjahpur District Alwar (Raj)

¶5

Sonu Yadav S/o Dharampal, Resident Of Village Sanoli, Police Station Shahjahpur, District Alwar (Raj)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶9

Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shri Jugram, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Sanolil P.s. Shahjahpur, Police Station Bhiwadi District Bhiwadi (Alwar) (Raj)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Ola. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav. Mr. S.S. Mahala, P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

REPORTABLE

03/10/2023

Instant revision petition is preferred aggrieved against from order dated 04.01.2022 in Sessions Case No. 21/2020 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mundawar, District - Alwar, whereby learned Trial Court has framed charges under Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 and 308/34 of IPC.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring the order of learned Trial Court submitted that from written report to statement of witnesses, nowhere it was alleged that the injuries were caused with knowledge and intention to cause death of injured. He further submitted that the injuries were on non-vital

[2023:RJ-JP:28018]

[CRLR-173/2022]

(2 of 6)

parts and same were not dangerous to life, therefore, it is not a case of 308 IPC. He further submitted that the case was registered due to political reasons and learned Trial Court has failed to consider material available on record.

¶22

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and also learned counsel for respondent-complainant on the ground that the injured Ashok Kumar was treated at AIIMS and the injuries were found on head and eye, therefore, the knowledge and intention was to commit deadly assault on injured. He further relied upon judgment of a coordinate Bench in the case of Kuldeep Kaur & Anr. v. State of Raj. : S.B. Criminal Revision No. 2224/2016 , decided on 11.09.2017, Prabhati Lal & Ors. v. State of Raj. : S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 334/2011 , decided on 25.04.2011 and Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State of Raj. : S.B. Criminal Petition No. 589/2012 , decided on 06.08.2012.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

We have considered the grounds of revision petition and also perused the orders of coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶25

A perusal of order dated 04.01.2022 and also the proforma of charge framed against petitioners clearly indicate that in charge No.3, the Trial Court has mentioned that the injuries on head and eye, resulting into fracture, are grievous injuries so the petitioners were charged under Section 325 IPC. The language used by the Trial Court is reproduced as under:-

[2023:RJ-JP:28018]

[CRLR-173/2022]

(3 of 6)

"3& ;g fd vkius mDr fnol] le; o LFkku ij vU; lgvfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk feydj lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj.k esa ifjoknh v'kksd ds lkFk dqUnky; ls ekjihV dj flj o vka[k ij pksV dkfjr dj vfLFkHkax dkfjr fd;k ftlls mlds xaHkhj izd`fr dh migfr;ka dkfjr gqbZA ,rn}kjk vkius /kkjk 325 lifBr /kkjk 34 Hkk0n0l0 dk vijk/k dkfjr fd; gS] tks fd esjs izlaKku esa gSA"

¶30

Similarly, charge No.4 was that with intention to cause death of Ashok Kumar, simple and grievous injuries were caused and if these injuries resulted into death, then the petitioner would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The language of charge No.4 is reproduced as under:-

¶31

"4& ;g fd vkius mDr fnol] le; o LFkku ij vU; lgvfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk feydj vkius lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj.k esa ifjoknh v'kksd dqekj ds lkFk dqUnky; ls ekjihV dj mls tku ls ekjus ds vk'k; ls mlds 'kjhj ij lk/kkj.k o xaHkhj migfr;ka dkfjr dhA ,slh pksV ls vxj v'kksd dqekj dh e`R;q gks tkrh rks vki gR;k dh dksfV esa u vkus okys vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k ds nks"kh gksrsA vkidk mDr /kkjk 308 lifBr /kkjk 34 Hkk0n0l0 ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k gS] tks dh esjs izlaKku esa gSA"

¶32

Aforesaid clearly indicates that for grievous injuries on head and eye, petitioners were charged under Section 325 IPC, but for all simple and grievous injuries, the petitioners were charged under Section 308 IPC.

¶33

Herein this case, the documents on record suggest that total 08 injuries were sustained and out of which, only Injury No.3 was found grievous. The injury No.3 was swelling with tenderness on left cheek. The document submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant suggests that this injury was diagnosed as left angle fracture of mandible.

¶34

Having considered the material on record, no opinion is available on record regarding injury No.3 to presume it to be dangerous to life. Similarly, there was no grievous injury on head

(4 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JP:28018]

[CRLR-173/2022]

as mentioned by the Trial Court in charge No.3. To assess cumulative effect on injuries No. 1 to 8, there has to be some material on record, though independent witnesses, which were referred during course of arguments, cannot be assessed at this stage. Herein to establish charge under Section 308 IPC, it has to be established from material on record that the injury had been inflicted with the intention or knowledge that, under the circumstances, if resulted in death, the petitioners/accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There has to be material on record to presume from the injuries, intention or use of deadly weapon to draw a certain conclusion. Certainly from fight on sudden provocation or quarrel on a trivial issue, no Court can presume that assault was premeditated.

¶39

A coordinate Bench of this Court in aforesaid referred cases, considered the charge under Section 308 IPC in a different situation, therefore, the referred orders have no application as regard to respondent is concerned. 12. In Section 2(b) of Cr.P.C. 'charge' is defined and further from Sections 211 to 224, the provisions of charge are incorporated, which are further divided in two parts: firstly - form of charges from Sections 211 to 217 and secondly - joinders of charges from 218 to 224. It is well settled that every Court has to consider that the framing of charges refers to Court's opinion that the accused or the person brought before it has done a particular offence and same was framed after considering police report and other documents and providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It also indicates that the accused is informed about the

[2023:RJ-JP:28018]

[CRLR-173/2022]

(5 of 6)

allegations against him so as to make him aware about the case of prosecution to be proved during trial.

¶44

Normally, the Courts opined that upon a prima facie case charges can be framed, which means that after considering the material on record, the Court is of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient on record to initiate a trial. The specific provisions under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. further provides that in every sessions case, the accused has a right to plead for discharge and if he is not discharged, then the Court will proceed to frame charges. There is a difference between Sessions Trial Cases (Chapter-XVIII) and Magistrate Trial Cases (Chapters - XIX, XX and XXI) and every Court has to understand this fact. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39; UOI v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr.: (1979) 3 SCC 4; P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala : (2010) 2 SCC 398; Mauvin Godinho v. The State of Goa : (2018) 3 SCC 358 and State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar (2021) 11 SCC 191 , laid down that at the stage of charge the Court is required to examine broad possibility of the case. A prima facie case against the accused is said to be made out when the probative value of the evidence on all essential elements in the charge taken as a whole in such that it is sufficient to induce the Court to believe in the existence of the facts pertaining to such essential elements or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts existed or did happen. A mini trial is not permissible at the stage of charge means that there cannot be a roving enquiry into the

(6 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JP:28018]

[CRLR-173/2022]

pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if the Court was conducting a trial.

¶49

Having considered the aforesaid, I am of considered view that the learned Trial Court without even considering material on record, mechanically framed the charges that's why charge Nos. 3 and 4 did not match with material on record and were also not in conformity with ingredients of offence.

¶50

Hence, aggrieved from order dated 04.01.2022, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 04.01.2022, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court with a direction to frame charges after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶51

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶52

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶53

PKS/271

Satish Kumar S/O Jorawar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar S/O Jorawar Singh 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

Dr Mahendra Mahla and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Nishant Heda S/O Rameshwar Lal Heda Vs Alok Kumar Mathur

Ganesh Yadav Son of Shri Ramkaran Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeevan Ram Meena S/O Late Shri Kanhiya Lal Vs Munni Meena W/O Shri Jeevan Ram Meena

Amit Kumar Dixit S/O Ankurnath Dixit B/C Dixit Vs State of Rajasthan

Leeladhar Son of Shri Badri Lal Vs State of Rajasthan