Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vaga Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28130) on 1 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28130]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 836/2023
Vaga Ram S/o Kana Ram Choudhary, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Village Mandvala, Tehsil And District Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Rekha Choudhary D/o Rana Ram, R/o Mandvala Tehsil
And District Jalore, At Present Sarpanch Gram Panchayat
Mandvala, Tehsil And District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Jamta Ram Patel
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
01/07/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 08.06.2023, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No.114/2021, whereby
learned trial court framed the charges against the petitioner for
offence under Sections 186, 427, 353, 332, 307 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2019,
complainant/respondent No.2 Rekha Choudhary gave a written
report at Police Station Kotwali, Jalore to the effect that she is
Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mandvala and during the process of
removing the encroachments made by the petitioner on the land
belonging to the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner misbehaved with
her and also assaulted her. After thorough investigation, Police
[2025:RJ-JD:28130] (2 of 3) [CRLR-836/2023]
filed challan against the petitioner before the competent court.
After arguments on charge, the learned trial court framed the
charges against the petitioner for aforesaid offences. Hence, this
revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to
the injury report, injured/complainant sustained four injuries by
blunt weapon, which are found to be simple in nature. Thus,
offence under Section 307 IPC is not at all made out against the
petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order to the
extent of framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC
against the petitioner being per se illegal may be quashed and set
aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/complainant have vehemently opposed the
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that
considering the injuries sustained by the injured/complainant,
learned trial court has justifiably framed the charge for offence
under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner. Furthermore, at the
time of framing charge, meticulous examination of evidence is not
necessary. The impugned order of framing charge is perfectly
justified and requires no interference from this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order of framing charge passed by the trial court as well
as injury report and other documents available on record.
The injury report of injured/complainant shows four injuries
caused by blunt weapon. Injuries No.1 to 3 are pain and
tenderness and injury No.4 is abrasion. All the four injures are
classified as simple in nature. Thus, this Court is of the view that
[2025:RJ-JD:28130] (3 of 3) [CRLR-836/2023]
the injuries sustained by the complainant do not fulfill the
essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC, which requires an act
done with the intention or knowledge of causing death, and an act
so dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. Thus, the
case does not establish an offence under Section 307 IPC. At
most, the evidence might support a charge under Section 323 IPC.
But, the learned trial court without proper consider of the
evidence, has framed the charge under Section 307 IPC against
the petitioners which is apparently illegal. Therefore, the
impugned order to the extent of framing charge for offence under
Section 307 IPC deserves to be quashed and set aside. Rest of the
charges framed by the trial court are not interfered with.
Hence, the order impugned dated 08.06.2023 passed by the
learned trial Court is set aside to the extent of framing charge for
offence under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner and the trial
court is directed to frame the charge for offence under Section
323 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC. The other charges framed by
the trial court are not interfered with.
The instant revision petition is partly allowed. Stay
application is also decided.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
81-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
