Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santosh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:29156) on 18 July, 2024
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2024:RJ-JD:29156]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 925/2024
1. Santosh W/o Shrawan Ram, Aged About 26 Years, B/c
Kumhar, R/o Khadkali, P.s. Panchodi, District Nagaur.
2. Shrawan Ram S/o Shri Kishan, Aged About 30 Years, B/c
Kumhar, R/o Khadkali, P.s. Panchodi, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Sharda W/o Shri Laxman Ram, B/c Prajapat, R/o
Khadkali, P.s. Panchodi, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramawatar Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anees Bhurat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order 18/07/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.17/2022, learned trial judge has directed for framing of charges against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 326, 307 of IPC read with Section 120 B of IPC.
3. According to FIR, the two petitioners, husband and wife, armed with dagger entered into house of the informant and started committing assault on husband of the informant, as a result whereof, he sustained injuries. Further allegation is that the petitioner Santosh assaulted with slaps and fists to the father-in-law of the informant as well as to the informant.
4. The doctor has found two incise wounds on the upper part of the left side of chest and on right palm. The doctor was of the (Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 10:02:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:29156] (2 of 3) [CRLR-925/2024] opinion that injury on the chest was dangerous to life and was grievous in nature. Injured Laxman Ram has supported before the police the manner of incident disclosed in the FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only two injuries have been found on the person of injured and there is no specific allegation against Smt. Santosh of commission of injury with dagger, hence, charge against Santosh under Section 307 of IPC is not made out.
Moreover, both the petitioners and the injured are residing in the same house, hence offence under Section 452 of IPC is also not made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that learned trial judge in a mechanical manner has passed the charge order without application of mind and without discussing the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "H.G. Grover Vs. State of Rajasthan" in "S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1356/2022" decided along with other connected revision petitions on 08.12.2022.
Learned counsel next contends that charge is not under Section 34 of the IPC, rather 120B of IPC. There is no evidence of criminal conspiracy prior to the incident.
6. The law is well settled that meticulous appreciation of evidence is not permissible at this stage. Only requirement is that there must be material disclosing a cognizable offence where under charges are going to be framed. Only for the reason that the trial judge has not discussed in detail, the material collected by the police and has simply stated that there is sufficient material (Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 10:02:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:29156] (3 of 3) [CRLR-925/2024] on record to frame charge, the impugned order cannot be faulted. At this stage it cannot be meticulously examined whether it was a case of house trespass or not. If the two brothers were separately enjoying the possession of the same house, a case of trespass can be alleged. If, there was jointness of possession, the trespass cannot be alleged and this fact would be examined at the appropriate stage of trial.
7. Further, the allegation discloses that both the petitioners entered into the house armed with dagger, hence, common intention can be inferred and charge can be amended at any stage even conviction can be recorded on proof of the charges with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, though charges were not framed for Section 34 of IPC, rather same were made under Section 120 B of IPC.
8. Since, the impugned order does not suffer from lack of material, detailed disclosure of the material and recording of reason is not the requirement to the sustainability of the order directing framing of the charges.
9. H.G. Grover (supra) was decided in quite different facts and circumstances of this case applicable on that case, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
10. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed. Nothing observed herein above shall prejudice the trial.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J 19-nitin/-
(Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 10:02:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)