Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohan Lal vs State on 24 July, 2023
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 289/2020
Mohan Lal S/o Sh. Mukhram, Aged About 49 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Pakka Bhadwa, Tehsil Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Atmaram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Longwala, P.s. Goluwala, District Hanumangarh.
3. Atma Ram S/o Sh. Jasram, R/o Longwala, P.s. Goluwala,
District Hanumangarh.
4. Vidhya Devi W/o Sh. Atmaram, R/o Longwala, P.s.
Goluwala, District Hanumangarh.
5. Kuldeep D/o Sh. Atmaram, R/o Longwala, P.s. Goluwala,
District Hanumangarh.
6. Sandeep D/o Sh. Atmaram, R/o Longwala, P.s. Goluwala,
District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kulwant Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
Mr. D.S. Gharsana
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 24/07/2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 11.12.2019 and the material available on record.
2. It is revealing that after conducting thorough investigation, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges and the charge- sheet came to be submitted only against husband of the deceased for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 306 IPC. The (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:11:09 AM) (2 of 2) [CRLR-289/2020] Court took cognizance of the offences and thereafter framed charges against accused Ram Kumar and the trial was commenced. During the course of trial, five witnesses were examined including father of the deceased and her two elder sisters. At this juncture, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. got preferred on behalf of the petitioner praying for arraignment of the accused Atmaram, Vidyadevi, Kuldeep and Sandeep in the trial and that application has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2019. The learned trial court has aptly considered the legal and factual aspect of the matter which in my humble view does not require any interference.
3. For the purpose of further satisfaction, I have also gone through the niceties of the matter, more particularly, the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the letter exhibit D-3 allegedly written by the deceased to her father. After overall consideration of the material placed on record and evidence brought on record, I do not think that the present one is a fit case for further taking cognizance and arraigning the respondents for additional persons as accused in the trial. There is no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
4. The petitioner would be at liberty to move a fresh application if further evidence brought on record is sufficient enough as guided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92.
(FARJAND ALI),J 258-Taruna/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:11:09 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)