Dismissed

Akshay Chaudhary S/O Rajendra Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Oct 2024CRLR/1296/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sessions Court convened two charges against the petitioner under Sections 307, 326, 323 and 34 IPC. The high court held that the injury report showed a stab wound dangerous to life, establishing sufficiency of evidence for Section 307 and dismissed the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition along with all pending applications stood dismissed.

Akshay Chaudhary S/O Rajendra Chaudhary Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:42914]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1296/2020

¶4

Akshay Chaudhary S/o Rajendra Chaudhary, Aged About 24 Years, R/o House No. 14, Aazad Nagar, Sanganer Jaipur Presently At Central Jail Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

Rajiv Choudhary son of Late Omprakash Chaudhary, aged about 33 years, R/o 7A-11, Shivnagar, Sanganer, Jaipur

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anupam Bhargava for Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Anshuman Saxena

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order

¶12

10/10/2024

¶13

Aggrieved from order dated 17.08.2020 in sessions case No.11/2020 instant revision petition is preferred by accused petitioner wherein he challenged the charge framed under Sections 323, 326, 307 and 34 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that from any of the evidence, intention of petitioner was not established that he assaulted with intention to kill the injured. He further submitted that there is no single iota of evidence to establish the ingredients of Section 307 IPC on record as intention or knowledge both were missing. He further submitted that the petitioner was with his family in public gathering and it is not possible to assault in premeditated manner. He further submitted that there is civil litigation between the parties and due to pending litigation, there was animosity between the parties. At last, he submitted that petitioner has a right to defence. He also submitted that trial court

[2024:RJ-JP:42914]

[CRLR-1296/2020]

(2 of 2)

has not considered the material forwarded by the police particularly the fact that cross-case was also registered against the injured.

¶19

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶20

We have considered the report received from learned trial court wherein it has been intimated that statement of four witnesses have already been examined, after framing of charge. A fact is quite clear that the petitioner released on bail after his fourth bail application was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This petitioner was named for assault and his role was established during investigation.

¶21

We have considered the injury report of injured Rajeev Choudhary wherein two stab wounds were found on his body and one of them is found as simple sharp but for another, opinion was reserved. After opinion, injury No.1 was found to be dangerous to life. The injured has already undergone treatment at SMS Medical College and Hospital as indoor patient. The evidence on record is sufficient to frame charge under Section 307 IPC.

¶22

Having considered the material placed on record and also statement of witnesses, the trial court has not committed any error while framing charge under Section 307 and 326 IPC, hence no case is made out for interference.

¶23

Accordingly, revision petition along with all pending application(s) stands dismissed.

¶24

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶25

PREETI VALECHA /52

Akshay Chaudhary S/O Rajendra Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Chaudhary S/O Rajendra Chaudhary 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

Nand Kishore Vs Rajendra Kumar and Anr.

Durga and Ors. Vs State

Sheoraf Khan Vs State

Dalmiya Dairy Industries Ltd. Vs U.O.I.

Phoolchand S/O Prahlad Vs Kartar Singh S/O Babu Lal

Toofan Singh @ Rahul @ Katappa S/O Shiv Singh Vs State of Rajasthan