Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Amichand Ahir And Etc. vs Krishna Kumar And Anr. on 26 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ1416, 1997(2)WLC248
ORDER M.A.A. Khan, J.
1. By his order dated August 14, 1991, made under Sections 227/228, Cr.P.C., the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in a case committed to him by the Magistrate, discharged Krishna Kumar respondent No. 1 of the offence under Section 307, IPC and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to frame a charge for the offence under Section 326, IPC against him and dispose of the case according to law. Aggrieved against such order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amichand complainant as also the State of Rajasthan have preferred these revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. before this Court.
2. In so far as the petition filed by Amichand, complainant is concerned the same is not maintainable. Undisputedly it was a case registered on police report and, therefore, the State and not Amichand, who may be the injured person in this case, was the prosecutor. A private person has no locus standi in a police case to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Section 397, Cr.P.C. That is the general rule which may admit of certain exceptions under very exceptional circumstances.
3. In the case of Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 911 : (1966 Cri LJ 700), the Apex Court had considered the question as to whether a private party has locus standi to file a revision petition under Section 397, Cr.P.C. either before the Sessions Judge or before the High Court in a case which has proceeded on a police report. Their Lordships made the following observations (para 9):-
"In a case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of Section 435 are very wide and he can even take up the matter suo moto. The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book."
4. The law laid down by their Lordships of the Apex Court in Thakur Ram's case (1966 Cri LJ 700) (supra) was followed by this Court in the case of Ganga Ram v. Prabhu Dayal, 1987 Raj Cri C 81, where it was held that a private party has no locus standi to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court/High Court m a case proceeded on a police report. In view of this legal position the Revision Petitions No. 184/91 filed by Amichand, complaint is not maintainable particularly for the reason that the State, which is a prosecutor in the case, has also challenged the order made by learned Sessions Judge under Sections 227/228, Cr.P.C. in this case.
4A. Now so far as the Revision Petition No. 231/91 preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the impugned order is concerned the relevant facts are that on Oct. 26, 1990 at about 7 a.m. Amichanid injured and Chottan were smoking a "hukka" in the 'nohra' of Dev Dutt Khali Respondent Krishna Kumar who was also there asked Dev Dutt to bring some "Amal" (liquid opium) for him but Dev Dutt refused to oblige him as he was having no money. This allegedly enraged Krishna Kumar respondent who tried to assault Chottan who ran away from that place. It is alleged that respondent, Krishna Kumar than struck a blow on the head of Amichand with a "dao" (sharp edged weapon). On X-ray examination the injury. caused to Amichand was found grievous in t nature.
5. The contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that looking to the weapon used, the force applied to it and the part of the body of Amichand chosen by Krishna Kumar respondent for inflicting him, the injury must be read prima facie as attributing an intention on the part of Krishna Kumar respondent to cause death of Amichand. I fail to subscribe to the approach made by the learned Public Prosecutor to the facts of the case.
6. It is not in dispute that only one injury was allegedly caused to Amichand by Krishna Kumar respondent, such injury was undoubtedly caused with a sharp edged weapon on the hear of Amichand. The injury is prima facie found to have fractured the left parietal bone of Amkhand. These facts are, required to be considered m the light of other facts naturally attending on the commission of the alleged offence by Krishna, Kumar respondent. No doubt it has been mentioned in the FIR that Krishna Kumar respondent was having enmity with Amichand complainant from before. But at she same time the prosecution case is that both of them, besides Chottan, were present in the Nohra of Dev Dutt Khetri. There is no version that Krishna Kumar had reached there armed with 'Dao' and even had exchanged some words with Amichand. There is also no version regarding Krishna Kumar's making further attempt to cause injury to Amichand. Thus there is no allegation that Krishna Kumar had ever repeated the blow with' 'Dao' on, Amichand. Merely because a grievous hurt with sharp edged weapon had been caused by Krishna Kumar, to Amichand on a vital parts of his body that is on head it cannot be held that Krishna Kumar had the intention to cause death of Amichand. Absence of repetition of the same act by Krishna Kumar against Amichand negatives any intention on his part to cause death of Amichand. The injury had no doubt fractured the left parietal bone of Amichand but from this fact alone .it cannot be held that Krishna Kumar had knowledge that death of Amichand would be the most probable consequence of his act. It cannot be laid down as a proposition that each and every injury, may be it is grievous in nature, caused with a sharp edged weapon on the vital part of the body like head would be an offence punishable either as a murder under Section 302, IPC or attempt to commit murder under Section 307, IPC. In the instant case only grievous injuries with sharp edged weapon had been caused to Amichand on his head. The doctor has not opined that such injury was likely to result in the death of Amichand. There is no averment that Krishna Kumar respondent had tried to repeat the blow. Under such circumstances the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was justified to have toned down the charge and returned the case back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for framing a. charge under Section 326, IPC against Krishna Kumar respondent. I thus find no jurisdictional error or any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned J Addl. Sessions Judge.
7. In the result both the orations are hereby dismissed.