Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashu Ram & Ors vs State & Anr on 20 February, 2018
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 111 / 2018
1. Ashu Ram S/o Parsa Ram
2. Kishna Ram S/o Ashu Ram
3. Mohan Ram S/o Parsa Ram
4. Pokar Ram S/o Mangaram, All by Caste Meghwal
Residents of Boseri, Tehsil Jayal, Surpaliya, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Jai Ram S/o Mohan Ram, By Caste Meghwal, Resident of Boseri,
Tehsil Jayal, Surpaliya, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay
For Complainant(s): Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Rajendra
Prasad and Ms. Venus Choudhary.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 20/02/2018 Petitioners have submitted this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to challenge order dated 23rd of October 2017, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), framing charges against them under Section 148, 149, 302, 201 IPC.
The facts apposite for the purpose of this petition are that second-respondent complainant filed a criminal complaint against (2 of 7) [CRLR-111/2018] petitioners on 1st of November 2011, which was forwarded under sub-section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. and thereupon FIR No.68/2011 was registered at Police Station Surpaliya, District Nagaur. The complaint unfurled that on 6th of September 2011 when Heera Ram, uncle of the complainant, was coming to his village Baseri and reached there, he had hot altercations with Lalu Ram. It further transpired from the complaint that the altercations infuriated Lalu Ram, who telephonically informed his family members and thereupon Lalu Ram, Ashu Ram, Mohan Ram etc. duly armed with lathis and Kassis started assaulting Heera Ram. Attempts made by Heera Ram to escape were foiled by all of them and further following him they caught hold of him at a distance of 3 km when he was sitting with Surja Ram. To his good fortune, Heera Ram again escaped and reached his field but there also he was encircled by all the accused persons to give him severe beatings. Hearing his screams, complainant and his grandmother reached the spot and asked accused persons to desist from their act of assault but all the requests went in vain and the accused persons threatened them not to intervene else they would also have the same fate. The complaint further revealed that indiscriminate beating given to Heera Ram eventually led to his death. The complainant specifically alleged in the complaint that at the scene of occurrence community members gathered and pressurized them to cremate body of Heera Ram and warned them not to register any case else they too would be exposed to dire consequences. In the complaint, it is also stated that complainant's uncle then reached the village at (3 of 7) [CRLR-111/2018] 6 PM and thereafter due to pressure of community members and accused persons agreed to sort out the dispute by paying Rupees five Lacs to deceased Heera Ram's family for their livelihood. Out of the agreed amount of Rs. 5 Lacs, a sum of Rs.1,70,000 was paid by the accused persons but later on all of them resiled from their commitment and therefore he is lodging this complaint.
Pursuant to FIR, investigation commenced and on its conclusion Lalu Ram and the petitioners were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences.
The learned trial Court, at the stage of framing charge, heard arguments of the prosecution as well as defence and by the order impugned framed charges.
Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that the alleged incident of 6 th of September, 2011 is sought to be projected with an embellished version in the complaint after a lapse of almost two months. Learned counsel has also urged that entire narration in the complaint is false and fabricated inasmuch as family members of the deceased including his real brother Mohan Ram submitted a petition before the SHO of police station concerned prior to laying of complaint with a positive assertion that Heera Ram died a natural death. It is submitted by learned counsel that this aspect has not been considered by learned trial Court while framing charges. Mr. Jain (4 of 7) [CRLR-111/2018] has strenuously urged that in absence of autopsy of the deceased, two versions, about cause of death of Heera Ram, have obvious adverse effect on the prosecution case in the wake of delayed FIR. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel would contend that the learned trial Court, while framing the charge, has not at all cared to examine this significant aspect of the matter. It is also submitted by learned counsel that there is no proof as to who has paid money to the complainant party and even if some amount is paid, that itself cannot form a basis to frame charges aforesaid including the charge of murder.
Per contra, Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor, submits that learned trial Court has considered the materials available on record while framing the charges and the grounds urged by petitioners to assail the impugned order are wholly untenable. Mr. Upadhyay has further argued that who submitted the application before the SHO Police Station showing natural death of Heera Ram is not discernible from the document and furthermore complainant is not the signatory of the same.
Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant, submits that during investigation incriminating material is recovered from accused-petitioners including lathis. It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel that dead body of Heera Ram was hurriedly cremated by the accused persons and some other relatives, in absence of wife of the deceased, is clearly evident from the police statements of Mohan Ram and Phusa Ram.
(5 of 7) [CRLR-111/2018] Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that police statements of Mohan Ram, Rameshwarlal and Surja Ram are sufficiently indicating involvement of the petitioners in commission of the aforesaid offences which the learned trial Court has considered appropriately, therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on following decisions:
(1) Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal [2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 173] (2) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. J. Jayalalitha [2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 469].
I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the materials available on record.
At the outset, it may be observed that learned counsels have addressed arguments touching the merits of the case with their own perceptions. Counsel for the petitioners has highlighted loopholes of the case whereas Public Prosecutor and counsel for complainant have vociferously canvassed strong points for framing charge. The concern of the Court is to see legality and propriety of impugned order on the touchstone of Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C.
While framing charges, Court is to see requirement of Section 227 & 228 Cr.P.C. that there should be a prima facie case against the accused and not sufficiency of evidence resulting into conviction. Therefore, charge can be framed if there are materials (6 of 7) [CRLR-111/2018] showing possibilities about the commission of crime as against certainty. In the present case, materials are considered by the learned trial Court including police statements of Jairama Ram and Surjaram and recovery of alleged weapon of offences lathis from the petitioners. That apart, hurried cremation of deceased Heera Ram by the petitioners and other accused Laluram is yet another circumstance showing prima facie involvement of the petitioners in commission of crime. Act of accused Laluram following the deceased from one place to another and allegedly giving beatings to him is also discernible from available material. Precisely, all the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners are in the form of defence which obviously cannot be looked into at the stage of framing charge.
Supreme Court, in case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Linga Swamy and Anr. [(2004) 6 SCC 522], while examining pre-requisites for framing charge under Section 228 & 240 Cr.P.C., held:
"10. In all these cases there was either statements of witnesses or seizure of illicit distilled liquor which factors cannot be said to be without relevance. Whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty. That being so, the interference at the threshold with the (7 of 7) [CRLR-111/2018] F.I.R. is to be in very exceptional circumstances as held in R.P. Kapoor and Bhajan Lal cases."
Same view is reiterated in a later case Soma Chakravarty vs. State through CBI [(2007) 5 SCC 403].
The learned trial Court, in my opinion, has duly considered the pre-requisites under Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C. while framing charges. Therefore, I record my satisfaction for legality and propriety of the impugned order which warrants no interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Resultantly, revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(P.K. LOHRA)J.