Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Govind Singh vs State & Anr on 28 February, 2012
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
S.B. Cr. Rev. Pet. No. 1304/2011.
Govind Singh Vs. State & Anr.
Alongwith connected matter
[ 1 ]
26
S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1304/2011.
Govind Singh Vs. State & Ors.
..
27
S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1302/2011.
Indra Dan @ Indra Jeet Vs. State & Ors.
..
Date of Order :: 28th February 2012.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Dhirendra Singh, for the petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor.
<<>>
BY THE COURT:
These two revision petitions, being related to the same case, i.e., the Sessions Case No. 50/2011 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, have been considered together; and are taken for disposal by this common order.
After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and after perusing the material placed on record, this Court has formed the opinion that the matter regarding framing of the charges in relation to the petitioners deserve reconsideration by the learned Trial Court and the questions, to that extent, deserve to be remitted to the learned Trial Court. In this view of the matter, dilatation on all the factual aspects does not appear necessary. Suffice is to make a brief reference to the background aspects.
S.B. Cr. Rev. Pet. No. 1304/2011.
Alongwith connected matter [ 2 ] These two revision petitions are directed against the orders dated 31.10.2011 and 01.11.2011 as passed by the learned Trial Court insofar they relate to framing of charges respectively against the petitioner Indra Dan @ Indra Jeet and against the petitioner Govind Ram.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner Govind Ram that he has unnecessarily been implicated in the present case on the basis of call details of the mobile but then, there is no corroborative evidence on record so as to show his complicity in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner, whose name did not find mention in the FIR, has unnecessarily been sought to be implicated and the learned Trial Court has been in error in framing the charges against the petitioner without examining the record. In relation to the petitioner Indra Dan @ Indra Jeet, it is submitted that he too is sought to be implicated without any reason or basis; that he was behind the bars in District Jail, Jaisalmer at the relevant point of time and he has been sought to be implicated without any cogent evidence on record. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court has not considered the submissions sought to be made by the petitioners before framing of the charges. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions so made and submitted that there being prima facie material available with the investigating agency against the present petitioners, they have rightly been charge-sheeted and the learned Trial Court has rightly framed the charges.
S.B. Cr. Rev. Pet. No. 1304/2011.
Alongwith connected matter [ 3 ] During the course of submissions, while examining the memo of charges framed, this Court posed the question to the learned Public Prosecutor about framing of charges against each of these petitioners for the offence under Section 307 IPC when they are essentially implicated with the aid of Section 120-B IPC and are alleged to be the persons having participated in the conspiracy. The learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention towards the contents of the orders dated 31.10.2011 and 01.11.2011 and submitted that essentially, the charges were sought to be framed under the relevant principal section namely, Sections 307 IPC and 302 IPC and were to be read with Section 120-B IPC; and such charge has indeed been framed as charge No. 2 for offence under Section 302 IPC; but mentioning of Section 120-B in charge No.1 has been omitted to be recorded and hence, the charge has been framed only under Section 307 IPC.
Having regard to the overall circumstances, while this Court would not like to make any comment on the other submissions on behalf of the either of the parties, it does appear appropriate to observe that it was required of the learned Trial Court to examine the record properly and to frame the charges in unambiguous manner. The charge No. 1 in relation to each of the petitioners has been framed for the offence under Section 307 IPC only; and reference to Section 120-B IPC has been omitted.
S.B. Cr. Rev. Pet. No. 1304/2011.
Alongwith connected matter [ 4 ] In the aforesaid view of the matter, it does appear appropriate that the question of framing of charges be remitted for reconsideration of the learned Trial Court, while setting aside the charges as framed against each of the petitioners by the orders dated 31.10.2011 and 01.11.2011. In the interest of justice, it is also observed that it shall be open for the parties to make all the relevant submissions before the learned Trial Court while the matter is taken up for framing of charges against the petitioners.
During the course of submissions, it has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was fixed in the Trial Court today for prosecution evidence but none of the prosecution witnesses was examined and now, the matter is fixed tomorrow, i.e., 29.02.2012.
Therefore, while the impugned orders dated 31.10.2011 and 01.11.2011, so far they relate to the present petitioners, are set aside. The question of framing of charges qua the petitioners is remitted to the learned Trial Court; and it shall be expected of the learned Trial Court to determine such question after extending opportunity of hearing to all the concerned while the matter is taken up tomorrow, i.e., 29.02.2012 before examining any witness in the matter.
Accordingly, these revision petitions are partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
Mohan/ S.B. Cr. Rev. Pet. No. 1304/2011.
Alongwith connected matter [ 5 ] 27 S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1302/2011.
Indra Dan @ Indra Jeet Vs. State & Ors.
..
Date of Order :: 28th February 2012.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Dhirendra Singh, for the petitioners. Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor.
<<>> BY THE COURT:
This criminal revision petition is partly allowed with the observations and directions vide common order made in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1304/2011 : Govind Singh Vs. State & Anr.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
Mohan/