Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bodu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18261) on 9 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:18261]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 403/2025
1. Bodu Ram S/o Shri Balla Ram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Lunoda Tehsil Didwana District Didwana Kuchaman
2. Jodha Ram S/o Bodu Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Lunoda Tehsil Didwana District Didwana Kuchaman
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Madan Lal Sihag S/o Ladu Ram, R/o Lunoda Tehsil
Didwana District Didwana Kuchaman
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/04/2025
The present criminal revision petition has been filed under
Section 438/442 BNSS by the petitioners against the order dated
15.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge,
Deedwana, Merta Judgeship in Session Case No.24/2024 whereby
the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners for
offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 427, 308 R/w Section 34 of
IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the
present criminal revision petition qua petitioner No.1 - Bodu Ram.
Hence the present criminal revision petition stands dismissed
as withdrawn qua the petitioner No.1.
[2025:RJ-JD:18261] (2 of 3) [CRLR-403/2025]
So far as the petitioner No.2 - Jodha Ram is concerned,
counsel submits that no specific averment has been made against
him and the allegation of causing head injury to the complainant
was leveled against petitioner No.1 - Bodu Ram. Counsel further
submits that according to the injury report of the complainant, he
sustained only one injury, which is classified as simple in nature
and no other injury has been found on his the body. It is further
submitted that the police has already exonerated co-accused -
Mahipal in this case. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned
order of framing charge passed by the trial court is per se illegal
and the same may be quashed and set aside while discharging the
petitioner No.2 from the aforesaid offences.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions
made by the counsel for the petitioners and prayed for dismissal
of the revision petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
impugned order passed by the trial court.
According to the statement of the injured/complainant,
specific averment of causing injury was made against the
petitioner No.1 - Bodu Ram and not against the petitioner No.2 -
Jodha Ram. Even from the perusal of the injury report, the
complainant sustained a single injury, which is classified as simple
in nature. Since, no specific averment has been leveled by the
complainant against the petitioner No.2 for the alleged offence,
therefore, the trial court has committed grave error in framing the
aforesaid charge against him. Thus, the impugned order passed
by the trial court is perverse and illegal and deserves to be
quashed and set aside qua petitioner No.2.
[2025:RJ-JD:18261] (3 of 3) [CRLR-403/2025]
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 15.01.2025, passed by learned Additional
Session Judge, Deedwana, Merta Judgeship is quashed and set
aside qua petitioner No.2 - Jodha Ram.
Stay application also stands decided.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
35-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
