Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jitendra vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:10313) on 20 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10313]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 386/2024
1. Jitendra S/o Shri Teja Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Liliya P.s Merta City District Nagaur
2. Teja Ram S/o Srhi Naina Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Liliya P.s Merta City District Nagaur
3. Kapil Beniwal S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
Liliya P.s Merta City District Nagaur
4. Smt Kamla Devi W/o Teja Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Liliya P.s Merta City District Nagaur
5. Papu Singh S/o Shri Jawarau Singh, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Kplpur P.s Rass District Pali
6. Ramu Narawat @ Ramu Sansi S/o Shri Sukhdev, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Sanshi Basti Chawani Near Old
Power House Beawar Dist Ajmer
7. Smt Puja W/o Dilip Sen, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Jaaton
Ka Mohalla Raas Dist Pali
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mahendra Banta S/o Shri Amara Ram Banta, R/o Liliya
P.s Merta City District Nagaur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sonu Manawat, PP
Mr. R.S. Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
20/02/2025
Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section
397 /401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No.
[2025:RJ-JD:10313] (2 of 4) [CRLR-386/2024]
68/2022 whereby, the learned Judge ordered to frame charges
against the petitioner for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149,
341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 302, 120B IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that a written report has been
filed by the complainant Mahendra stating therein that on
28.07.2022, some water got collected in front of house of
complainant and he dug the land for smooth passing of water. At
that time Teja and his wife started abusing the complainant. In
the afternoon at about 2 PM, the accused petitioners alongwith
some other persons attacked the complainant and his family
members. It was alleged that Jitendra assaulted complainant, Teja
Ram caught hold of Narayan Ram and Jitendra and Kamla
attacked him with Saria due to which he died on the spot.
On this report, the police registered a case and started
investigation. After due investigation, the police filed chargesheet
against the present petitioners. Thereafter, the case was
committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Merta, where, arguments on the charge were heard. Thereafter,
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ordered to frame charges
against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149,
341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 302, 120B IPC. Hence, this present
revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per FIR,
Teja Ram caught hold of Narayan Ram and Jitendra and Kamla
attacked Narayan Ram with Saria on his chest and head due to
which Narayan Ram died on the spot. However, according to the
postmortem report, the injured sustained only simple injury that
too abrasion on his forearm. No opinion has been given regarding
[2025:RJ-JD:10313] (3 of 4) [CRLR-386/2024]
cause of death of deceased but viscera were preserved and sent
to FSL. As per medical opinion/Hystopathology report "Aorta-
Show atherosclerotic changes." It is argued that the deceased
was already suffering from heart disease due to which he expired
and it has nothing to do with the alleged incident. Learned
counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Ramalingam & Ors Vs. N. Viswanathan reported in
2024 cr.L.R (SC) 169.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the respondent Mr. R.S. Choudhary argued that there are
statements of complainant as well as other witnesses alleging
assaulted by the petitioners. Further it is settled proposition of law
that at the stage of framing of charge, meticulous examination is
not warranted and the scope of powers conferred under Section
397 Cr.P.C is very limited.
I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
From the perusal of documents on record, it is evident that
in the FIR complainant has alleged that Teja Ram caught hold of
Narayan Ram and Jitendra and Kamla attacked Narayan Ram with
Saria on his chest and head due to which Narayan Ram died on
the spot. However, according to the postmortem report, the
injured sustained only an abrasion of 3.5 x 0.3 cm on upper
forearm and besides that no other internal and external injury was
found. Further no opinion was given regarding cause of death of
deceased and as per Hystopathology report, the cause of death
[2025:RJ-JD:10313] (4 of 4) [CRLR-386/2024]
was myocardial infarction of ischemia or cardiorespiratory failure.
Admittedly, the medical report does not mention that the
deceased expired as a result of the injuries caused to him. The
cause of death has been mentioned as cardiorespiratory failure.
Although the complainant has alleged that the injuries were
caused on the head and chest of the deceased but no such
internal or external injuries were found on the body. Therefore,
there is no material on record so as to arrive at the conclusion
that the deceased Narayan Ram expired as a result of assault
made by the petitioners. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court,
the order framing charges against the petitioners for the offence
under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order
dated 25.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Merta in Sessions Case No. 68/2022 to the extent of framing
charge for offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and
set aside. No interference is called for in the impugned order
framing charges for other offences.
Stay application is also disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
141-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
