Ramjeevan S/O Shri Late Sohan Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7635 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2649/2019
Ramjeevan S/o Shri Late Sohan Lal, R/o Little Birds Public
School, Sanjay Nagar, Behind Mahila Police Station, Alwar.
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
                                                                     ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2376/2019 Rajendra Prasad Gupta S/o Late Shri Netram, R/o F-37, Apna Ghar, Shalimar, Alwar (Rajasthan).

----Complainant/Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent

2. Ramjeevan Kushwah S/o Shri Sohan Lal, R/o Little World Public School, Sanjay Nagar, Behind Mahila Thana, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar District Alwar (Rajasthan)

----Accused/Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal for accused-

petitioner Mr. Kapil Gupta for complainant-

petitioner For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS Order

15/12/2021

These revision petitions have been filed against the

impugned order dated 30.08.2019, therefore, the revision

petitions are being decided by common order.

Revision Petition No.2649/2019 has been filed with following

prayer :-

(2 of 5) [CRLR-2649/2019]

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to call for the entire records of the case and further be pleased to quash and set aside the Judgment dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar, Rajasthan in Sessions Case No.16/2018 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Rakesh and Others Original Sessions Case and charges framed against the petitioner in Sessions Case State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramjeevan No.34/2019 under Section 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 read with section 34 IPC be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from all offences.

Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the petitioner".

Revision Petition No.2376/2019 has been filed with following

prayer :-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed, and the impugned order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar, Rajasthan in Sessions Case No.16/2018, titled as State of Rajasthan vs. Rakesh and Others may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent whereby the learned trial court discharge the accused respondent No.2 from the offence under Sections 308 and 120B I.P.C. and further directed the learned trial court to framed the charge against the accused respondent No.2 under Sections 308 and 120B of IPC also; and Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner".

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the

accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan that the learned trial court has

failed to consider the evidence on record and has erred in framing

the charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 341,

323, 324, 325, 326, 307 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC.

It has further been submitted that the charge-sheet has

been filed in this case against the petitioner on the basis of call-

details. As per FIR, the incident took place at about 3:30 p.m. on

16.11.2017. As per charge-sheet, record of call-details shows that

the communication between the accused-Ravi Chaudhary and the

(3 of 5) [CRLR-2649/2019]

petitioner took place only four-five times. On the basis of timing

as it is mentioned in the call-detail, no inference can be drawn

that there was a conspiracy between the accused and the

petitioner. As per the charge-sheet, no communication has been

found between the petitioner and other three main accused,

namely-Rakesh, Nilesh and Santosh, therefore, in the absence of

positive and direct evidence, no offence of conspiracy can be

made out. Hence, the petitioner is liable to be discharged.

Ingredients of Section 120A of IPC are not proved. In this case,

the ingredients of common intention are also not proved prima

facie, hence, the charges framed against the petitioner are liable

to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be discharged from

the offence for which he has been charged. The injury report also

does not reveal that the injury was on any vital part of the body,

therefore, offence under Section 307 of IPC is also not made out.

Learned counsel for complainant/petitioner-Rajendra Prasad

Gupta has submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the

provisions of law to the extent, whereby the respondent No.2 has

been discharged from the offence under Sections 308 and 120B of

IPC. There is sufficient evidence on record to prima facie frame

the charges against the respondent/accused No.2-Ramjeevan for

offence under Sections 308 and 120B of IPC.

It is further submitted that the call-details have been placed

on record according to which the accused-Ramjeevan was in

contact with another accused-Ravi Chaudhary and Ravi Chaudhary

called the co-accused Rakesh 66 times before and after the

incident. Apart from this, there is evidence on record that

witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 of

(4 of 5) [CRLR-2649/2019]

Cr.P.C., stated that when co-accused Rakesh, Bittu and Veeru @

Nilesh were beating injured-Vivek Gupta, they were threatening

that if after that day any complaint is made against Ramjeevan,

then the family members would face serious consequences. Thus,

the conspiracy between the co-accused Rakesh, Santosh and

Nilesh and the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan is prima facie

proved, therefore, charges need to be framed against the

accused-Ramjeevan for offence under Sections 308 and 120B of

IPC.

Heard and perused the record available on the file as well as

the impugned order dated 30.08.2019.

Learned trial court has taken into consideration the evidence

available on record and on the basis of material placed on record

arrived at prima facie satisfaction that there was sufficient

material to frame charges under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 326

and 307 r/w 34 of IPC. As per statements of injured and eye-

witnesses, it has come on record that three co-accused, namely

Rakesh, Santosh and Nilesh beat injured-Vivek Gupta with rod and

sword and thereby, causing him injuries. The accused/petitioner-

Ramjeevan was not present at the place of incident as per the

statement of injured and other eye-witnesses. The injured and the

other witnesses have stated in their statements recorded under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that while the injured was beaten by the co-

accused, namely Rakesh, Santosh and Nilesh, and then Rakesh

threatened that if in future any complaint is made against the

Ramjeevan, then serious consequences will follow. Thus, it is

prima facie evident from the evidence collected during the

investigation that the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan was not

(5 of 5) [CRLR-2649/2019]

present at the place of occurrence but there was prima facie

evidence on record to frame charges against the

accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan for offence punishable under

Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 120B of IPC.

The accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan was not present at the

place of occurrence and there is no evidence on record to prima

facie prove that the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan acted in

furtherance of the common intention at the place of occurrence

and no overt act was done by him, therefore, the learned trial

court has erred in framing the charges under Sections 323, 324,

326 and 307 of IPC with the add of Section 34 of IPC but there is

sufficient prima facie evidence on record, on the basis of evidence

of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and call-details between

the accused persons, that the petitioner-Ramjeevan conspired

with other co-accused in commission of offence. Resultantly, the

charges framed against the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan deserve

to be modified. Trial court is directed to frame the charges against

the accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan for offence punishable under

Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 120B of IPC.

Accordingly, the revision petitions are disposed of. Learned

trial court is directed to modify the charges against the

accused/petitioner-Ramjeevan as indicated above.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Copy of this order be placed in the connected file.

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

Hemant/40-41

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)