Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prabhu Ram vs State on 8 August, 2019

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 236/2018

Prabhu Ram S/o Amra Ram, By Caste Patel, Resident Of Ramdev
Road, Police Station Kotwali, Pali Raj.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Asha Devi W/o Shri Bheemaram, R/o 18, Dusari Gali,
Khodiya Balaji, P.S. Kotwali, Pali (Raj.)
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Vineet Jain.
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP.
                               Mr. M.S. Bhati, for complainant.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order 08/08/2019 The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali, whereby the learned trial court framed the charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 459, 323 and 325 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenges the order dated 30.01.2018 only to the extent of framing of charge under Section 459 IPC. Counsel submits that there is no evidence available on record which shows that the petitioner had caused any grievous hurt to any person whilst committing lurking trespass or house breaking. Counsel submits that as per the admitted case of the prosecution, the petitioner had allegedly entered the house and was trying to open the lock of a room, the inmates got up and the petitioner caused injury to them, therefore, the said act was not committed by the petitioner (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:30:05 AM) (2 of 3) [CRLR-236/2018] whilst attempting to commit lurking house trespass or causing injury by knife. In these circumstances offence under Section 458 IPC is prima facie made out against the petitioner instead of offence under Section 459 IPC as framed by the trial Court.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that prima facie offence under Section 459 IPC appears to be made out against the petitioner because the accused had entered the house and caused knife injury to the complainant Asha Devi W/o Bhimaram. In such circumstances, the order of framing charges is just and proper and requires no interference from this Court.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the record of the case.

Section 459 IPC reads as under:-

"459. Grievous hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house- breaking.--Whoever, whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Section 459 IPC clearly says that grievous hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house-breaking. On perusal of the statements of complainant as well as other witnesses as also the site inspection memo, it is evident that the accused had already entered the house while breaking the lock of the room and then he caused injuries to the injured. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie offence under Section 459 (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:30:05 AM) (3 of 3) [CRLR-236/2018] IPC is not made out against the petitioner instead of offence under Section 458 IPC prima facie is made out against him.

Hence, the instant criminal revision petition is partly allowed. The order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali is quashed and set aside to the extent of framing charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 459 IPC. The trial Court shall frame the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 458, 323 and 325 IPC.

Stay petition is also decided accordingly.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 100-Ishan/-

(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:30:05 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)