[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5413) on 30 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:5413]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1123/2025
Surendra Singh S/o Bhawani Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
Resident Of Village Novi Ps Sumerpur District Pali Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Deepak Joshi S/o Shri Mana Lal Ji, Resident Of Village
Sewadi Tehsil Bali District Pali Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamboo Singh Rathore
Mr. Chain Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
30/01/2026
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge is made to the order dated 31.05.2025 whereby the
learned trial Court ordered to frame charges against the petitioner
for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323 read with
323/34, 342 read with 342/34, 365 read with 365/34, 440 read
with 440/34, 307 read with 307/34 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial
Court has committed an error of law in ordering framing of
charges against the petitioner because the requisite material was
not available on record. It is his assertion that there was no fire-
arm injury on the body of the victim Sagar Mali and, therefore, it
can be presumed that fire-arm was not used and that is why the
learned trial Court discharged the petitioner from the charge
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:04:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5413] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1123/2025]
under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. He further argued that since
there was no injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature and the injury was not dangerous to life, therefore, no
offence under Section 307 of IPC would be attracted.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently made a
protest to the submissions made at the instance of the petitioner
and urged that for the purpose of invocation of Section 307 of IPC,
there is no need that the injury received by the victim must be
such as is likely to cause death and so also there is no
requirement of law that only if firearm injuries would be sustained,
the penal provision of Section 307 of IPC attract. He further urges
that the petitioner was discharged from Section 3/25 Arms Act for
the reason of there being no previous sanction of District
Magistrate concerned since as per Section 3 of the Arms Act, to
prosecute a person, a previous sanction is necessary and in this
case the SHO abstained from obtaining the requisite sanction,
therefore, the discharge order was passed and, therefore, the
petitioner cannot take advantage of it.
4. I have bestowed upon the submissions made at bar and the
material available on record.
5. The petitioner was discharged from the offence under
Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act solely on the ground of absence of
the requisite sanction. As per the statutory mandate, prosecution
under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act requires prior approval of the
District Magistrate. Admittedly, no such sanction had been
obtained by the investigating agency and, therefore, the learned
Trial Court had no option but to discharge the petitioner from the
said offence. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:04:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5413] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1123/2025]
cannot be permitted to derive any undue advantage from the said
discharge.
5.1 The victim, in his statement, has categorically alleged that
the petitioner attempted to kill him by deliberately ramming his
vehicle with a Bolero car. It has further been alleged that after the
collision, the victim was assaulted, as a consequence of which he
sustained injuries.
5.2 The site memo placed on record, along with the photographs
of the vehicle in which the victim was travelling and the
photographs of the other vehicle, clearly depict a collision between
the two vehicles. The site memo further prima facie corroborates
the version of the victim regarding the incident of vehicular
collision. The allegations of causing injuries to the victim find due
corroboration from the medical evidence available on record.
5.3 For the purpose of invocation of Section 307 of the IPC, it is
not mandatory that the victim must necessarily sustain grievous
or life-threatening injuries. Section 307 IPC contains two distinct
clauses. The first part, which prescribes punishment up to seven
years, does not contemplate the actual causing of injury. The
second part, being the aggravated form, provides enhanced
punishment where, in the course of making an attempt to kill the
victim and he sustains injuries, the punishment would be of 10
years or which may reach up to the life imprisonment and in my
view, the petitioner cannot take advantage of this fact that the
injuries were not dangerous to life received by the victim and
cannot escape from the rigour of Section 307 IPC.
5.4 The plea raised by the petitioner that a false case has been
foisted upon him and that a mere accident has been given the
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:04:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5413] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1123/2025]
colour of a criminal prosecution cannot be examined at this stage.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal reported in 2000
(1) SCC 722, it is a settled principle that at the stage of framing of
charge, meticulous appreciation of evidence is neither warranted
nor permissible, and the Court is not required to weigh and sift the
material collected during investigation. Thus, viewed from any
angle, this Court finds no justifiable ground to interfere with the
impugned order whereby charges have been framed against the
petitioner. The instant revision petition is wholly devoid of merit
and deserves dismissal.
6. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
7. Stay petition as well as pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
8. The observations made hereinabove are confined strictly to
the limited purpose of adjudication and disposal of the present
revision petition. The same shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case and shall not, in any manner
whatsoever, influence the learned Trial Court at any stage of the
proceedings.
(FARJAND ALI),J
7-divya/-
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:04:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
