Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jakir Khan @ Jakir Hussein vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42067) on 16 October, 2024
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2024:RJ-JD:42067]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 790/2023
Jakir Kha @ Jakir Hussein S/o Kale Kha, Aged About 21 Years, R/
o Chak 3 Kwsm Presently At 2 Kwm Sansardesar Ps Chatargarh
Tehsil Chatargarh Dist. Bikaner
(At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Ravi Kumar S/o Satpal, R/o Sector No. 12 Ward No. 7
Hanumangarh Junction Dist. Hanumangarh Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nishant Motsara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
16/10/2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act against order dated 04.05.2023
passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Criminal Miscellaneous Case
No.16/2023, whereby the learned Special Judge has framed
charges against the appellant for offence under Sections 307/149,
386/149 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
[2024:RJ-JD:42067] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-790/2023]
3. Respondent No.2 was already served with notice, however,
no one appears on his behalf.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
Public Prosecutor.
5. Contention of the appellant is that a bare perusal of the FIR
No.821 dated 10.12.2022 registered with Police Station
Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh, which led to
initiation of trial against the appellant would reveal that
ingredients of offence under Section 307/149 or of offence under
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are prima facie not made out.
6. Learned counsel contends that no other material was
collected during investigation to substantiate prima facie case for
proceeding with the trial against the appellant.
7. According to FIR, unknown miscreants had demanded
ransom from Indra Kumar Hisaria, a businessman. Informant was
employee of Mr. Hisaria. On 10.12.2022, the informant was taking
tea near a tea-stall and a cleaner was cleaning the business
premises of Mr. Hisaria. At the same time, three unknown
miscreants came on a motor-cycle and with intent to commit
murder of Mr. Hisaria fired at the shop, however, Mr. Hisaria was
not there. Firing hit only at the glasses of the gate. The
miscreants fled away and an FIR was lodged against unknown.
8. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that
Mr. Hisaria was not a member of the Schedule Caste/Schedule
Tribes, therefore, offence under SC/ST Act would not attract.
Moreover, offence under Section 307/149 IPC will also not be
attracted in the fact and circumstances of this case as there is no
allegation of firing towards any individual. The intention was to
[2024:RJ-JD:42067] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-790/2023]
cause fire Arm injury to Mr. Hisaria, who was not there at the time
of incident. Firing was not made at the informant, who was taking
tea at the tea-stall at some distance from the business shop.
9. Learned counsel for the State submits that at the stage of
consideration of framing of charges, meticulous appreciation of
evidence is not permissible in law. After investigation, the police
has submitted charge-sheet, hence, prima facie material is there
against the petitioner.
10. Evidently, offence under SC/ST (Prevetnion of Atrocities) Act
is not made out in the fact and circumstances of this case as
neither ransom was demanded from a member of the SC/ST
Community nor firing was made at any member of the SC/ST
Community. Hence, offence under aforesaid Section is not
attracted. As such, learned Trial Judge has framed charges in a
mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.
11. Likewise, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out in
the facts and circumstances of this case because it is the
prosecution case that firing was made at the shop and hit the
glasses and the person who was intended to be assaulted with
firearm injury was not there. Firing was not made pointing to any
other person including the informant. Therefore, offence under
Section 307/149 IPC is also not made out against the appellant.
12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment to the extent of framing
of charges under Section 307/149 IPC and under the provisions of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant stands
hereby set aside.
13. The trial may go before the competent court under Section
386 read with 149 IPC.
[2024:RJ-JD:42067] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-790/2023]
14. Competent court shall re-read the charges against the
appellant.
15. The instant Criminal Appeal stands allowed accordingly.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
48-charul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
