Rajasthan High Court

Ram Singh Meena S/O Shri Girraj ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 August, 2021

Bench: Manoj Kumar Vyas

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 791/2020

1.     Ram Singh Meena S/o Shri Girraj Rajilwad, Aged About 26
       Years
2.     Namonarayan Meena S/o Shri Girraj Rajilwad, Aged About
       29 Years
3.     Girraj Rajilwad S/o Shri Chhotu Meena, Aged About 64
       Years,
       All Residents Of Chhoti Udai, P.S. Piloda, District Sawai
       Madhopur (Raj.)
                                                       ----Accused-Petitioners
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Advocate Mr. Pushpendra Pandey, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Judgment

05/08/2021

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed

against the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge No.1, Hindaun City, District Karauli in Sessions

Case No.27/2020, whereby, the charges have been ordered to be

framed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 341,

323, 364 and 307 read with 34 of IPC.

It has been submitted that the impugned order dated

05.03.2020 and the consequent charges framed against the

petitioners, are illegal, improper and not sustainable being

(2 of 6) [CRLR-791/2020]

contrary to the facts and the material available on record. The

learned trial Court has overlooked the medical reports available on

record, which would reveal that the injuries sustained by the

injured, were neither opined to be dangerous to life nor sufficient

to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The material

available on record is not sufficient to bring the case within the

ambit of Section 307 of IPC. The learned trial Court has failed to

consider and to appreciate the material available on record. There

was no evidence to frame charges under Section 307 of IPC

because there was no material to show that the injuries in

question were caused with the intention or knowledge as required

to constitute an offence under Section 307 of IPC. However, the

evidence of the prosecution is taken as such, there is no likelihood

of the accused-petitioners being convicted for the offence under

Sections 364/34 and 307/34 of IPC. Indisputably, the injured Sher

Singh is brother-in-law of petitioners No.1 and 2 and there was no

intention to cause death of the injured Sher Singh. The necessary

ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 364 and 307

of IPC, are completely missing in the facts of the present case.

Hence, it is prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and

the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the learned trial Court,

framing the charges against the petitioners, may be quashed to

the extent of charges under Sections 307/34 and 364/34 and they

may be ordered to be discharged accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the

evidence available on record including the FIR, statement of

injured Sher Singh recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., injury

report and X-ray report of injured Sher Singh and other medical

(3 of 6) [CRLR-791/2020]

record available on the file, and has submitted that even if the

case of prosecution is taken to as a whole, charges under Sections

364 and 307 of IPC, cannot be legally sustained. The prosecution

has not produced any evidence on record to suggest or to prove

that the injuries were caused with intention or knowledge of

causing death to the injured Sher Singh. In support of his

arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments :-

(i) Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2021 SC 2351

(ii) Champa Lal Dhakar v. Naval Singh Rajput (2019) 4 SCC 146

(iii) Kalu Ram @ Dharmendra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

[SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 92/2013 decided on 13.12.2013]

(iv) Harsh Dan v. State of Rajasthan [SB Criminal Revision No. 484/2018 decided on 01.05.2018]

(v) Deepak and ors. v. State of Rajasthan [SB Criminal Revision No. 1157/2016 decided on 03.10.2016]

(vi) Hariram and ors. v. State of Rajasthan [SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 408/2019 decided on 25.04.2019]

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the

complainant have submitted that the order framing the charges

against the petitioners, is legal, looking to the material available

on record. As per the injury report of injured Sher Singh, total 15

injuries were described, out of which, injuries No.2,4,5,6 and 7

were described as grievous. The injured sustained several

fractures on his body including fracture on second rib, right tibia

and fibula, left tibia and fibula, right humerus lower-end with

surgical intervention. It is further submitted that the injured

remained hospitalized for more than 20 days and as per the

opinion of medical jurist, following observation has been made :-

"ewy izfr yksVkdj ys[k gS fd et:c 'ksj flag S/o dka'khjke dh MLR No.680/date 17-10-19, x-ray report no.396, date 1/11/19 rFkk fVªVesaV fjdkWMZ (submitted by police person PS ckyk?kkV dkjkSyh) ds vk/kkj ij mDr pksVksa ds

(4 of 6) [CRLR-791/2020]

izk.k?kkrd gksus dh laHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;ksafd et:c bykt ds nkSjku 20 fnu ls T;knk vLirky esa HkrhZ FkkA"

In support of their arguments, reliance has been placed on

following judgments :-

(i) Dharmendra Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan 2010(1) RJT 129

(ii) Smt. Sugani and ors. v. State of Rajasthan and anr.

2011(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1309

(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem @ Chamaru (2005) 5 SCC 554

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

evidence available on record including the statement of injured

Sher Singh as well as medical reports available on the file, and the

order framing charges against petitioners of the learned trial Court

dated 05.03.2020.

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Sanjay Kumar Rai v.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. AIR 2021 SC 2351 :-

"Further, it is well settled that the trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. The Court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal]. Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be."

In the case of State of M.P. v. Mohan and ors. 2013 AIR SCW

4663, hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-

"16. High Court was of opinion that injuries has not been caused on vital parts of the body. In order to attract Section 307, the injury need not be on the vital parts of the body. In order to attract Section 307, causing of hurt is sufficient. If anybody does any act with intention or knowledge that by his act he might cause death and hurt is caused, that is sufficient to attract life imprisonment. Section 307 uses the word 'hurt' which has been explained in Section 319, IPC and not "grievous hurt" within the meaning of Section 320, IPC. Therefore, in order to attract Section 307,the injury need not be on the vital part of the body. A gun shot, as in the present case, may miss the vital part of the body, may result in a lacerated wound, that itself is sufficient to attract Section 307. High Court is, therefore, in error in reducing the sentence, holding that the injury was not on the vital part of the body. Period undergone by way of sentence also in our view is not commensurate with the guilt established."

(5 of 6) [CRLR-791/2020]

Hon'ble Supreme Court has also summed-up the legal

position on the point of framing of charge in the case of Union of

India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4, as under :-

"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge :

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out:

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

Thus, it is well settled legal proposition of law that at the

stage of framing of charges, the trial Court is not supposed to

discuss in detail the evidence available on record. The trial Court

has to frame, prima facie, opinion whether the material available

on record gives rise to grave suspicion against the accused that he

has committed an offence for which charges can be framed on the

basis of evidence collected by the prosecution. Defence cannot be

(6 of 6) [CRLR-791/2020]

considered at the stage of framing of charges. For the purpose of

framing charge under Section 307 of IPC, it is not necessary that

injury must have been caused on the vital part of the body. In

order to attract Section 307 of IPC, causing of hurt is sufficient. If

anybody does any act with intention or knowledge that by his act

he might cause death and hurt is caused, that is sufficient to

attract the provisions of Section 307 of IPC.

In the present case, looking to the evidence available on

record, including the statements of injured and other witnesses

recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and medical evidence

regarding injuries of the injured Sher Singh, the framing of

charges under Sections 364 and 307 of IPC by the learned trial

Court cannot be held to be against the material available on

record or illegal or perverse and the trial Court was justified in

coming to a, prima facie, conclusion for framing the charges

against the petitioners for offence under Sections 307 and 364 of

IPC.