Ram Pratap vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7393 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:30723]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 1010/2019

1. Ram Pratap S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of 4 C Chhoti Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.

2. Bhadar Ram S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of 4 C Chhoti Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.

3. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Ram Pratap, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of 4 C Chhoti Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.

----Appellants Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Kashi Ram S/o Shri Kishna Ram, By Caste Nayak, Resident Of 4 C Chhoti Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP Mr. Anil Gupta

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

19/09/2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. I have gone through the order under assail and the other

material made available on record.

3. Vide order impugned, the learned trial Court had allowed the

application filed by the complainant Kashi Ram under Section

319 of the Cr.P.C. It was averred in the application that

besides the accused Gauri Shankar, the name of the accused

petitioners were also found place in the FIR and the

[2023:RJ-JD:30723] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1010/2019]

statements of the prosecution witnesses but their names

have perversely been removed from the list of the accused

and thus, while exonerating them; the charge-sheet got filed

only against the accused Gauri Shankar under Sections 323

and 341 of the IPC and under the penal provisions of SC/ST

Act. A perusal of the order impugned revealing that the

learned trial Judge has meticulously considered the issue

involved and after going through the material available on

record as well as taking guidance from the judicial

pronouncement made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it was

held that there are sufficient grounds to arraign the present

petitioners also since there complicity in commission of the

crime was very much apparent on the face of the record and

accordingly, the application filed under Section 319 of the

Cr.P.C. was allowed and process was issued against the

petitioners and the said order is under assail before this

Court.

4. I have minutely gone through the evidence brought on

record and felt that the learned trial judge has prudently

discussed the evidence available on record and while

following the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court

in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 has passed the order which in

my considered opinion does not require any interference.

Otherwise also the order came to be passed way back in the

month of January, 2019 and no interim order is operational in

the matter. It can be assumed that much water must have

been flowed under the bridge till date. Thus, there appears

[2023:RJ-JD:30723] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1010/2019]

no reason to interfere in the matter, accordingly, viewed from

any angle, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed being

devoid of merit.

5. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.

6. The stay petition also stands dismissed.

(FARJAND ALI),J 136-Ashutosh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)