Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Balveer Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 May, 2004

Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ4331

Author: N.N. Mathur

Bench: N.N. Mathur

ORDER
 

 N.N. Mathur, J. 
 

1. The instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sri Ganganagar framing charge against the petitioners namely Balveer Singh, Surendra Singh, Mahendra Singh and Jaswant Singh for offence under Sections 302, 302/34, I.P.C.

2. The necessary facts giving rise to the instant petition are that on 12-6-2002 one Mehar Chand lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Kotwali Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that his daughter Shakuntla was married to accused Mahendra Singh about 6 years back. There was a dispute between husband and wife which led to Court proceedings. On 11-6-2002 his deceased son Ramesh went to the house of Mahendra Singh petitioner herein at about 4.30 a.m. with a view to bring settlement. It is alleged that at about 6.15 a.m. when he reached to the house of the accused, the other accused persons namely Balveer Singh, Surendra Singh and Jaswant Singh abused him. They refused to settle his sister in their house accusing her to be a lady of bad character. While the oral altercation was still going on Jagdish and Krishan left the place. They had hardly moved 2-4 steps, heard cries of deceased Ramesh uttering ^^tyk fn;k] ekj fn;k** On this information police registered a case for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and proceeded with investigation. After investigation police filed a charge-sheet against the accused petitioners for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 22-11-2002 held that there was no material to frame charge against the petitioners for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. However, the learned Judge on the basis of material on record framed charge against the petitioners for offence under Section 302 and in alternate 302/34 I.P.C.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is no evidence worth the name to even prima facie conclude that the deceased Ramesh was being murdered by the petitioners. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor supported the order of the trial Court.

4. I have perused the entire record carefully and considered the rival contentions. It is well settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not to meticulously judge the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence. The Court at this stage is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction but to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. On appreciation of material on record if the Court comes to the conclusion that even if the evidence collected by the police is fully accepted, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, there is no ground for proceeding. Reference may be made to State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh reported in AIR 1977 SC 2018 : (1977 Cri LJ 1606). Thus the test whether the material if unrebutted would ultimately warrant conviction.

5. In the instant case the First Information Report has been lodged by Mehar Chand the father of the deceased on the basis of statement of Jagdish. Thus, the statement of Mehar Chand is only hearsay. I have read the statements of each and every witness recorded by the police and I have not been able to find out a single line wherein any body has attributed a specific role to any of the accused persons that they poured kerosene oil or any other inflammable liquid on the body of deceased Ramesh. Thus, even if the statement of the witnesses goes unrebutted, there is no material to proceed with the trial against the petitioners on the charge of murder i.e. Under Section 302, 302/34 I.P.C.

6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sri Ganganagar dated 22-11-2002 framing charge against the petitioners for offence under Section 302, 302/34 I.P.C. is quashed and set aside.