Manak Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 10187 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 860/2022

Manak Ram S/o Hamir Ram, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Kumawat, R/o Village Jas Nagar, Police Station Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Hardeen Ram S/o Naina Ram, B/c Kumawat, R/o Kumawato Ki Dhani, Village Jas Nagar, Police Station Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

04/08/2022

1. Petitioner has preferred the present revision petition

claiming the following relief :-

"It is most humbly and respectfully prayed that Your lordship may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this revision petition of hte petitioner and order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No.7/2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the section 307 & 452 of IPC and Hon'ble court remand the matter before the Trial Court for hearing the matter and order afresh speaking order in this case."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section

307 of IPC is not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner

(2 of 5) [CRLR-860/2022]

further submits that the petitioner and complainant are in first

degree of relationship and were having a revenue dispute.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention

of this Court towards the conclusion arrived at by the investigating

officer, which is part of the charge-sheet.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment rendered by this Court in Magha Ram Meghwal &

Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017(3) Cr.L.R.

(Raj.) 1352. The said judgment reads as under :-

"By way of this revision preferred under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek to assail the order dated 22.8.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur whereby, the trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325/34, 308, 308/34 I.P.C. Learned counsel Shri Jakhaniya restricted his arguments to the extent of the charge under Section 308 I.P.C. He urges that the sole injured Sohan Ram suffered 7 superficial and trivial injuries on his person in the incident at hour. Of the 7 injuries, one on the right leg was opined to be grievous as there was a fracture of right lower 1/3 part of fibula bone. Out of the 7 injuries, there was abrasion measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on occipital region of the injured. He thus, urges that the trial court was not at all justified in framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. because neither knowledge nor intention to cause such injury which could prove fatal can be attributed to the petitioners in view of the nature and location of the injuries inflicted to the injured. He thus craves for acceptance of the revision and urges that the impugned order deserves to be set aside to the extent of the charge under Section 308 I.P.C.

                                      (3 of 5)                       [CRLR-860/2022]


     Per     contra,      learned         counsel            Shri    Solanki
representing    the     complainant             and     learned       Public
Prosecutor     vehemently          opposed            the      submissions

advanced by the petitioners' counsel. They urged that as the petitioners inflicted numerous injuries including a head injury to the injured, the trial court rightly framed charge under Section 308 I.P.C. against them.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

The injured Sohan Ram suffered the following injures in the incident as per the injury report dated 15.6.2015:-

(1) Reddish diffuse swelling and tenderness is present over lower 1/3 part of rt leg.

OR/Xray/blunt (2) Abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm red blood on left occipital region

simple/blunt (3) Laceration 3x0.5 cm red blood on lower 1/3 left thigh simple/blunt (4) Laceration 2x0.5 cm red blood upper 1/3 rt leg

simple/blunt (5) Laceration 3x0.5 cm red blood middle 1/3 rt leg

simple/blunt (6) Abrasion 2x0.5 cm red blood upper 1/3 left leg mediog simple/blunt (7) Abrasion 2x0.5 cm red blood on lower 1/3 left leg simple/blunt After examination of MLX X Ray plates No.8924/15/6115 there are fracture of Rt Lower 1/3 part of fibula bones. So injury No.1 is grievious in nature."

On going through the description of the injuries, it is apparent that the sole injury on the head of the injured was 0.5 x 0.5 cm and was not having any depth whatsoever. Thus, apparently, the injury was trivial and

(4 of 5) [CRLR-860/2022]

superficial. The other injuries were all located on the legs of the injured.

In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the accused cannot be attributed either the knowledge or the intention of causing such injuries to the injured which could prove fatal so as to make them liable for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C.

Resultantly, the trial court was not at all justified in framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. The impugned order to that extent is per-se illegal.

As an upshot of the above discussion, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent the trial court framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. in the alternative for the offence under Section 308/34 I.P.C. The accused petitioners are discharged of the said offence. Rest of the charges are maintained. Since the accused have been discharged from the sole offence triable by a court of Sessions, the matter shall be remitted to the concerned CJM for trial as per law.

The revision is allowed in part accordingly."

5. In this case also, learned counsel for the petitioner

restricts his argument to the extent of charge under Section 307

of IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated

from the injury report, which indicates that there is a single injury

of lacerated wound, which is simple in nature. It is also contended

that the facts of the case as well as injuries on the face of it

clearly indicate that there was no intention to cause any injury

which could prove fatal. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus,

craves for acceptance of the revision while urging that the

(5 of 5) [CRLR-860/2022]

impugned order may be set aside to the extent of the charge

under Section 307 of IPC.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the petition.

8. This Court, after considering the arguments advanced

by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through

the record of the case, finds that the injuries are all simple in

nature and facts of the case do not indicate any intention to cause

fatal injuries.

9. This court is unable to understand as to in what

circumstances, a simple injury of lacerated wound without any

appropriate weapon could bring the case within the ambit of

Section 307 of IPC.

10. Thus, the trial court was not at all justified in framing

charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 307

I.P.C. The impugned order to that extent is per-se illegal.

11. In light of the aforesaid observation, the impugned

order dated 11.05.2022 passed by learned trial court is set aside

only to the extent of framing of charges against the petitioner for

the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The accused - petitioner is

discharged from the offence under Section 307 of IPC, while rest

of the charges are maintained.

12. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, to the

extent as indicated above.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

29-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)