The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges. The court held that charges under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC can coexist and that firearm recovery is not mandatory for Arms Act charges.
The criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JP:3144]
[CRLR-1433/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1433/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
18/01/2024
The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj) in Sessions Case No.12/2023 whereby, learned trial court has framed the charges against all the accusedpetitioners under Sections 323, 341, 324, 325, 326 & 307 of IPC
[2024:RJ-JP:3144]
[CRLR-1433/2023]
(2 of 3)
and under Section 5/27 and Section 30 of Arms Act against petitioner-accused No.1 and 2 respectively.
Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that learned trial court has wrongly framed the charges against the accused-petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 324, 325, 326 & 307 of IPC. He also submits that against the accused-petitioners Dharmendra Singh and Kailash Singh, charges under Section 5/27 and Section 30 of Arms Act were wrongly framed as there was no recovery of any firearm from the accused Kailash and Dharmendra Singh. He further submits that the formation of charges under Section 307 IPC is also illegal as the learned trial court has framed the charges under Section 326 of the IPC. The charges under Sections 307 & 326 cannot run concurrently, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that learned trial court has rightly framed the charges against the accused-petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
It is settled law that at the time of framing of charges, Court is required to consider the material available on the record. It is not required for the Court to minutely scrutinize the statements of the witnesses at the stage of framing of charges.
Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 28.07.2023 after discussing the evidence available on the record and considering the fact that accused-petitioners Kailash and Dharmendra Singh fired at injured Kanchan, directed to frame the charges against the accused-petitioners Kailash and Dharmendra
[2024:RJ-JP:3144]
[CRLR-1433/2023]
(3 of 3)
Singh under Sections 307 IPC along with Section 5/27 & Section 30 of the Arms Act.
The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the charges under Sections 326 & 307 cannot run concurrently are totally misconceived. Section 307 of IPC makes a distinction between the act and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, if any, falls within ambit of Section 307 of IPC. In the present case, it is alleged that all the accused with common intention assaulted the complainant and injured and also used firearm, resulting into grievous injury to the injured Kanchan. Therefore, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both charges cannot be framed, is incorrect. The injuries caused to injured Kanchan is due to the use of firearm, resulting into grievous injuries. Further it is not essential that for framing charges under Sections 5/27 and Section 30 of the Arms Act, the recovery of firearm is necessary. The ingredients of above Sections do not require recovery of the weapon. It is enough for the Court to frame the charges under Section 5/27 and Section 30 of the Arms Act if there is any use of firearm. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 28.07.2023 has elaborately dealt with all the issues.
Therefore, the present criminal revision petition is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.
All pending applications also stand dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
19-Rahul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether charges under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC can run concurrently.
Whether recovery of a firearm is essential to frame charges under Sections 5/27 and 30 of the Arms Act.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Kailash Singh
Dharmendra Singh
Rajkumar Singh
Devendra Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Bhanwar Singh
Praveer Bhatnagar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
