Dhaniram @ Mango S/O Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dhaniram @ Mango S/O Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge under Section 307 (alternatively 307/149) IPC against the accused — founded on the injury suffered by injured Rekha — was supportable at the charge-framing stage, given the FIR/Section 161 CrPC variance as to who inflicted the injury and divergent medical opinions; the petitioners objected only to this charge and raised no objection to the remaining charges. +1 more

Court's answer

At the stage of framing charge, microscopic examination and discussion of evidence is neither appropriate nor necessary; firm/strong suspicion suffices.

Ratio / Principle

Viewed from that standpoint, there was sufficient material to frame the charges against the accused.

Key takeaways

For a charge under Section 307 IPC, actual infliction of injury is not necessary; the intention or knowledge of the accused is what is material.ratio¶¶30
Since all the accused are alleged to have committed the incident jointly, such minor inter-se discrepancies (between the FIR and the Section 161 CrPC statements) ought not to be considered at the charge-framing stage.ratio¶¶29
Although the treating eye doctor had not described Rekha's injury as serious, the Medical Jurist stated that on account of the injury implantation in the eye became necessary and the injury was unsafe for Rekha's life; the court treated the material as sufficient for framing the charge.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 755/2025, decided 06/05/2025 by Uma Shanker Vyas, J. — Revision (supervision) petition DISMISSED. Five accused (Dhaniram @ Mango, Rajveer, Shishram, Balveer, Veero) challenged a charge-framing order dated 04-03-2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 21/2024 by Sessions Court No. 1, Bharatpur, framing charges under Sections 148, 323/323-149, 325/325-149, 324/324-149, 326/326-149, 336/336-149 and 307/307-149 IPC, confining their objection to the Section 307 charge founded on the injury to injured Rekha. They argued that the FIR attributed that injury to a different person while all witnesses in their Section 161 CrPC statements attributed it to petitioner Veero, that the doctor had not called the injury life-threatening at the first stage, and that differing doctors' opinions were obtained at different times; they sought discharge only under Section 307/307-149 IPC. The Public Prosecutor defended the order. Held: (i) at the charge stage, microscopic analysis/discussion of evidence is neither appropriate nor necessary — firm suspicion suffices, and the material was sufficient to frame charge; (ii) in a case of alleged joint assault by all accused, minor discrepancies between the FIR and Section 161 CrPC statements are not to be considered at this stage; (iii) although the eye-doctor did not call the injury serious, the Medical Jurist stated the injury necessitated ocular implantation and endangered Rekha's life; (iv) for a Section 307 IPC charge, actual infliction of injury is not necessary — the intention or knowledge of the accused is material. The order dated 04-03-2025 was confirmed as wholly in accordance with facts and law; the revision petition and the connected application were dismissed/rejected. No precedent was cited or discussed.