Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
(Bachan Singh Rawat And 19 Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan) on 26 March, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 457/2013 S.B. Cr. Misc. Stay Application No. 1850/2013 (BACHAN SINGH RAWAT AND 19 ORS. VS.STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order : : 26th March, 2014 PRESENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora for the petitioners Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat ) Mr. Virendra Godara ) Public Prosecutors for the State. BY THE COURT :
This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners (twenty in numbers) under section 397 Cr.P.C. read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.2.2013 of Additional Sessions Judge No.18 Jaipur Metro in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2011 framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under sections 147, 148, 307/149, 332, 333, 353, 283 and 188 IPC against them.
Brief facts of this case are that on 11.3.2010 the body of Babli, a girl from Uttrakhand Samaj was found dead-murdered after being brutally raped and badly mutilated in a Maruti Car on the outskirts of Jaipur and it was quite apparent from the state in which the body was found that the girl had been victim of gang rape and there she was brutally killed. The main accused was suspected to be related to a police official and co-accused persons also appeared to be influential people and because of this reason the police did not arrest anybody in the matter for a considerably long time. On 15.3.2010 the Uttrakhand Samaj decided to take out a peaceful rally on 21.3.2010 protesting against non arrest of the murderers of deceased Babli and to give a representation to the Chief Minister of the State. On 21.3.2010 the rally started from Statue Circle and reached Sardar Patel Marg, opposite BJP Party Office at Jaipur. Some police officials and constables stopped the rally and it was informed that five persons can go to the Chief Minister's office to give their memorandum. It is stated in the petition that while five leaders of Samaj left for Chief Minister's office and rest of persons sat down on the road, some police persons eve teased ladies and girls in the rally and when one person from the rally objected 10-15 police persons started hitting rally persons with sticks and batons. At this the ladies tried to save the persons then those ladies and children with them were also beaten. Police also started pelting stones. Some unidentified persons from the rally also started pelting stones. One of the stone hit Rajesh Meena Additional Superintendent of Police. On this turn of events the persons who had gone to give memorandum were brought back and the people of the Samaj were badly beaten by the police. One Naresh Kumar working as Sub Inspector in Police Station Ashok Nagar lodged an FIR No. 127/2010 in respect of the said incident under sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 283, 332, 353 and 307 IPC. In the FIR it was recorded that 17 persons were arrested at the place of incident. Charge sheet was filed against 52 persons. During the pendency of the proceedings three persons passed away Shanker Dutt Joshi, Dinesh Kapil and Madho Singh. The trial court heard arguments on the point of charge and proceeded to frame charge against the accused petitioners vide order dated 23.2.2013. Against this order 20 accused petitioners have filed the present revision petition.
Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners has argued that the order framing charge is contrary to the material collected on record and also ignores provisions for framing charge. None of the ingredients of the offences set out even prima facie are made out against the accused petitioners. The Uttrakhand Society was just taking out a peaceful rally and there was no intention of it to harm any body. There is no evidence on record against the accused petitioners to indicate the existence of any unlawful assembly or any unlawful object or intention to harm anybody. It was argued that the order framing charge against the accused petitioners deserves to be set aside.
Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat and Mr. Virendra Godara, Public Prosecutors appearing for the State have opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and it was argued that the trial court after hearing and considering the material on record framed the charge against the accused petitioners. The order framing charge has been passed in accordance with law and calls for no interference in this revision petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the order framing charge against the accused petitioners. Looking to the arguments raised in the criminal revision petition and in the interest of justice the order dated 23.2.2013 framing charge against the accused petitioners is quashed and set-aside; and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to again hear the accused petitioners and consider the arguments raised in the criminal revision petition, and pass a fresh order after hearing all the parties concerned, in accordance with law and in the light of the judgments, if any, to be submitted by learned counsel for the parties.
However, if the petitioners move any application for exemption from personal attendance, the same should be decided by the trial court, in accordance with law.
The trial court shall hear the case, on the next date of hearing, which has been fixed by the trial court in the matter or at any other date of hearing, which the trial court would fix, as may be deemed fit and proper.
However, if the petitioners are not satisfied with the judgment, to be delivered by the trial court afresh on the charge argument, they are free to approach this Court again by way of filing a fresh petition.
The revision petition stands disposed of with the above directions and the stay application also stands disposed of.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.
DK All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.
Dilip Khandelwal PA