Aslam @ Chintu S/O Ahamad Ali B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3828 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 996/2019

Aslam @ Chintu S/o Ahamad Ali, R/o Mayur House Gumanpura
Kota
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Ashvin @ Goldi S/o Ramprasad, R/o 325B Namrata Avas
         Bajrang Nagar Ps Borkhera Kota Parmanent R/o Jamal
         Chauk Kotdi Gumanpura Kota
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Madhav Mitra
                                Mr. Veerendra Singh
For Complainant(s)        :     Mr. Samarth Sharma
For State                 :     Mr. Yashwant Kankhadia, PP


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
                     Judgment / Order

17/08/2021

1. Petitioners have preferred this Revision Petition aggrieved by

Order dated 19.01.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Women

Atrocities Cases No.1, Kota, where charges were framed against

the petitioner for offence under Section 148 of IPC, alternate 147,

307/149, 325/149, 427/149 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the injury

sustained by the injured is on finger which is not dangerous to life.

It is not established that the injury is caused by a firearm. It is a

case of simple injury and at maximum, the case would travel to

Section 308 IPC. It is also contended that doctors has also not

given any opinion that the injury is dangerous to life. In fact, the

firearm was used for fleeing from the place as there was threat to

the petitioner. From the FSL Report it is revelaed that the report of

(2 of 2) [CRLR-996/2019]

FSL that the firearm has been used for support to flee the

petitioner as empty shells which were recovered did not match

with the firearm recovered from the petitioner. It is further

contended that the FSL report has been received after framing of

the charge. It is also contended that there is no armour report. It

is further contended that it is not established that the injures

caused to the injured were caused by the present petitioner.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the revision petition. It is contended that the

injured in his Parchbayan has specifically stated that petitioner

alongwith other co-accused fired at him. He jumped from the wall

and they followed him and fired at him.

4. I have considered the contentions.

5. Taking note of the fact that there is specific allegation

against the petitioner of opening firearm at the complainant.

Though the FSL report has been received after framing of the

charge but, from the FSL report, it is evident that the firearm

which was recovered from the petitioner has been fired, however,

the definite time of last fire was not ascertained in the report. I

am of the considered view that the injuries sustained has no

relevance when the firearm has been used and the framing of

charge under Section 307 IPC cannot be said to be bad in law,

hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision petition.

6. Revision petition is accordingly, dismissed.

7. Stay application stands disposed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /30

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)