Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bharat Singh & Ors vs State & Anr on 7 September, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL REVISION (CRLR) No. 793 of 2015
BHARAT SINGH & ORS.
VS
STATE & ANR
PETITIONERS:-
1. Bharat Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, By Cast Rajput,
Resident of Sindaru, Tehsil Sumerpur, District-Pali.
2. Kushpal Singh S/o shri Dilip Singh, By Cast Rajput, R/o
Ummedpur Morva, Tehsil Ahore, District-jalore.
3. Bhopal Singh S/o Shri Ganapat Singh, By Cast Rajput,
R/o Kuara, Tehsil Ahore, District-Jalore
Versus
RESPONDENTS:-
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Raju Ram S/o Shri Narayan Das, By Cast Vaishnav, R/o
Sindaru, P.S. Sanderao, Tehsil Sumerpur, District-Pali,
Rajasthan
Date of Judgment : 7.9.2016
HON'BLE MR. GOVERDHAN BARDHAR,J.
MR. SHAMBHOO SINGH ]
MR. FARJAND ALI ] for the Appellant / Petitioner
MR. O.P. RATHI, PP for the State
MR. PRITAM JOSHI for the respondent No. 2
JUDGMENT
------------
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur whereby he has framed charged against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 329, 427 & 308/34 of IPC.
2
Heard counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there is no prima facie evidence to show that the petitioners had any intention or knowledge to cause such injury which may result in death of the injured and they may be held guilty for offence under Section 308 IPC and the offence does not travel beyond causing grievous hurt.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is specific allegation that the accused Bharat Singh and two others came with Lathi and caused injury to his leg and hand. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the injured was 62 years old, who was unarmed.
I have perused the impugned order. As per injury report injured Raju Ram sustained seven injuries on his body in which four injuries were found to be grievous in nature and the accused-petitioners were found to be aggressors. The learned trial Court has recorded cogent reasons for framing charges and it is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, 3 even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.
In view of above, after perusing the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial court has rightly framed charges against the petitioners on the basis of material available on record and no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 26.06.2016. Hence, the revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
( GOVERDHAN BARDHAR ),J.
Bjsh/46