Mohan Lal S/O Shri Sheolal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2617 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 648/2021

Mohan Lal S/o Shri Sheolal, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Gorkhi
Thana Malsisar District Jhunjhunu (Raj)
                                                        ----Accused-Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
                                                                ----Respondent

2. Braj Lal S/o Pitaram, R/o Ward No. 18, Malsisar District Jhunjhunu (Raj)

---Complainant-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka, through V.C.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

Order

06/07/2021

Challenge in the criminal revision petition filed by the

accused petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.

has been made to the order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the

Court of Additional Session Judge No. 2 Jhunjhunu (for short "the

trial court") whereby the trial court framed charge against the

accused petitioner for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

Counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that none of

the witnesses examined during the course of investigation have

admitted they had seen the accused petitioner hitting deceased

with an iron rod. Counsel further submitted that the witnesses in

their testimony have admitted that the deceased used to consume

liquor as he was a habitual drinker. Therefore the possibility of

(2 of 3) [CRLR-648/2021]

death of deceased was might have sustained injury while falling in

an intoxicated condition.

In support of his submissions counsel for the accused

petitioner has placed reliance upon following judgments delivered

in the cases of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in

(2007) 7 SCC 413 and in Dilawere Balui Kurane Vs. State of

Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 wherein it has been

held that at the stage of charge, the court should not summarily

frame the charge and he has to shift and weigh the evidence for

limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case is made

out against the accused petitioner or not.

In addition to above submissions, counsel appearing for the

accused petitioner submitted that the trial court framed the

charges against the accused petitioner on 06.02.2021 without

giving cogent reasons. The order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the

trial court reads add infra:-

06-02-2021 ,ih ih mifLFkrA eqyfte eksguyky tekur e; odhy mifLFkrA cgl pktZ lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA eqyfty eksgu yky ds fo:) izFken`"V;k vijk/k /kkjk 302 Hkknl ls i=koyh esa miyC/k nLrkostkr Lo lk{; lkexzh ij vkjksi xBu fd;s tkus ds iw.kZ vk/kkj ekStwn gSaA eqyfte eksguyky dks i`Fkd ls /kkjk 302 Hkknl ls vkjksi fojfpr dj lquok;k ,oa le>k;k x;kA eqyfte us vkjksi lqu o le>dj tqeZ ls bUdkj dj vUoh{kk pkghA izFke rhu xokgku dks tfj;s leu ls ryc fd;k tkosaA i=koyh lk{; vfHk;kstu fnukad 01-03-2021 dks is'k gksA ,l Mh vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k la- 2 >q>auw jktLFkkuA Heard counsel for the accused petitioner and the learned

counsel appearing for the State.

Perused the material placed before the court including the

impugned order passed by the trial court.

(3 of 3) [CRLR-648/2021]

The order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the trial court reflects

that it has been passed without considering the arguments and

assigning any cogent reason.

In view of above, the order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the

Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jhunjhunu, is set aside

and the matter is remanded to the trial court for hearing for the

purpose of framing of charge a fresh.

Revision petition is accordingly disposed of.

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

ashu/44

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)