Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sunil Kumar And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 21 May, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1104/2012 SUNIL KUMAR & OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. DATE OF ORDER : 21.05.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II Mr. R.P. Vijay, for the petitioners.
Mr. Mahendra Meena, Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. Instant revision petition has been filed under Section 397(401) Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.01.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Kota(hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) in Session Case No. 141/2011, whereby charges have been framed against the accused-petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 452/34 IPC and under Section 4/25 Arms Act.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Prabhu Lal lodged FIR at Police Station Kaithoon, Kota bearing No. 237/2010 inter alia alleging that the son of the complainant Rajesh went to connect electric wire at D.P. and when he was sitting at the shop of Mahavir, then accused-petitioner Narayan came at there and asked him as to why he connected the wire in D.P. due to which some altercations took place and the person present there separated them and sent them at their residences. Thereafter, the complainant, his son Rajesh, Ramesh, Suresh and his brother Prem Chandra were sleeping in the Chowk of the house and at about 11.00 P.M., accused-petitioners Narayan, Sunil, Tulsiram entered in the house carrying weapons. Narayan was carrying Desi(local) Katta and sword, Sunil and Tulsiram were carrying knife and Gupti and accused Narayan opened fire from Desi Katta and then, all the accused-petitioners started beatings to Rajesh and when the complainant and Ramesh run to rescue, then they were also beaten. After due investigation, concerned police filed the charge sheet in the Court of Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, North, Kota for offences under Sections 308, 341, 323, 324, 452/34 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act and then the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Trial Court. Learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for both the parties, passed impugned order dated 19.01.2012 framing charges against the accused-petitioners in the terms as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2012 passed by the Trial Court, the accused-petitioners have filed this revision petition before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners vehemently contended that order passed by the Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures. If all evidence is taken together, no case is made out against the accused-petitioners. He further submitted that impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is patently illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law as also the material available on record. Learned Court below has seriously erred in passing the impugned order because there was no legal evidence to connect the accused-petitioners with the alleged crime. He further submitted that the order framing a charge effects a persons liberty substantially and, therefore, it is the duty of the Court to consider judiciously whether the material warrants framing of charges or not and it cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution or the complainant that the accused be asked to face the trial. Impugned order is not reasoned and speaking order and thus, not sustainable in the eyes of law. The injuries found against all the persons are simple in nature and as such no case for offence under Section 308 IPC is made out against the accused-petitioners. The allegations levelled by the complainant are prima facie not correct, which clearly shows that the injuries were also caused by blunt weapons. As per allegations, there were only sharp edged weapons. However, all the injuries are simple in nature and no case for offence under Section 308 IPC is made out. The doctor has not opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death which would be amount to culpable homicide. Learned Trial Court has not considered the aspect that in order to frame the charges, the requirement is to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existing of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences. The injuries sustained by injured persons are simple in nature and not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. So, offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out in this case. So, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners prayed that instant revision petition may be allowed, impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court may be quashed and set aside and the accused-petitioners may be discharged. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions delivered by the Honble Apex Court in the cases of Onkar Nath Mishra & Others Vs. State(NCT of Delhi) And Another, (2008) 2 SCC 561 and Bishan Singh and Anr. Vs. The State, AIR 2008 SC 131.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently defended the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that the same is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence available on record. He has also submitted that by detailed order, learned Trial Court has rightly framed charge under Section 308 IPC against the accused-petitioners. For the offence under Section 308 IPC the point for consideration is the intention of the accused-persons. If the accused-persons cause injuries with the intention to commit culpable homicide then it would amount to offence under Section 308 IPC and it would be immaterial whether injury caused on the body of the injured is simple or grievous. For the offence under Section 308 IPC, it is not necessary that doctor should give opinion that injuries caused to the injured were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was the duty of the Trial Court to see all the facts and circumstances of the case including the number of injuries, weapon used, relationship between the parties and the facts and circumstances under which offence was committed. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that looking to the number of injuries, nature of weapon used, part of the body chosen by the accused-petitioners and the facts and circumstances of the case, it was clear that accused-persons had caused injuries with intention to commit culpable homicide. Learned Trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the accused-persons including the offence under Section 308 IPC. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is just and proper and present revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. The Trial Court while passing impugned order has observed as under:
?? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????-28.07.2010 ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ????, ????? ? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??????, ????? ? ???????? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? "?????" ?? ???? ???? ? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????-???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ? ???? ?? ?????? ? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????
???? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????, ?????, ????? ???, ?????, ????, ???????? ?? ????-161 ??.???.??. ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????, ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???, ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ????, ????? ? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???????????? ??? ??? ?????????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????
??: ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????????? ????????, ????? ? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ????-341, 323, 324, 308, 452/34 ??.??.??. ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ???????? ????? ? ?????????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????-4/52, ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??: ???? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???"
7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence available on record, this Court finds that learned Trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the accused-petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 452/34 IPC and under Section 4/25 Arms Act. Learned Trial Court appears to have committed no error in framing the said charges against the accused-petitioners on the basis of material available before it. It is true that strong suspicion is enough for framing charges. It is also true that there is no legal requirement that the Trial Court should write order showing the reasons for framing charge, there is no need to overburden already burdened trial courts with said extra work. Honble Apex Court in the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah And Another Vs. State of W.B., (2000) 1 SCC 722 clearly observed that no reasons are required to be recorded when charges to be framed against an accused. Reasons are required to be recorded only when accused is to be discharged. So, in this case, learned Trial Court has passed a detailed order and in above view expressed by the Honble Apex Court there is no need to give detailed reasons.
8. After considering arguments of both the parties, I am of the view that in the present case, Section 227 Cr.P.C. is relevant and from Section 227 Cr.P.C. two things are clear. First thing is that the Court can discharge an accused from the offence only after it finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It means that if there is prima facie case, then the court should frame the charges. The Court should discharge only when there is no prima facie evidence against the accused for that offence. Second thing which is required from Section 227 Cr.P.C. is that if the accused is discharged, then the Court should record its reasons for doing so, i.e., it should give reasons as to why it has come to the conclusion that such offence is not made out.
9. So far as Section 308 IPC is concerned, it is settled law that for this offence, it is not necessary that injured persons have received grievous hurt on the vital part and it is also not necessary that doctor should opine that injured persons have received such injuries which are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature to cause offence of culpable homicide. The main thing for Section 308 IPC is whether accused-persons have intention or knowledge to cause culpable homicide of the injured. So far as such intention or knowledge of accused-persons is concerned, it can be gathered from the number of injuries, from the nature of weapon used, from the part of body chosen by the accused-persons for causing injuries and by the other circumstances under which offence was committed and the relationship between the accused and injured etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two objections first is that injured has not received any grievous hurt on vital part and second is that injured has not received such injuries which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause culpable homicide. In my considered opinion, the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court were sufficient for charging the accused-petitioners for the offence under Section 308 IPC. The Trial Court has held that from the statement recorded and from the facts and circumstances of the case, offence under Section 308 IPC is made out and learned Trial Court has passed detailed order in this respect. So, in my view, the Trial Court has framed the charge against the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 308 IPC, the same is just and proper in the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record in this case. This Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be a case in which the culprits would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this Section. An attempt in order to be criminal, need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
10. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the material produced by the prosecution is sufficient or not for conviction of the accused. If the Court satisfies that prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. If there are grounds for prima facie believing that the accused have committed an offence, the Court shall frame the charges against them.
11. In the present case, sufficient evidence is available on record which suggests that the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 452/34 IPC and under Section 4/25 Arms Act are made out against the petitioners and further, there are grounds for reasonably believing that the accused-petitioners have committed the alleged offences.
12. Honble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. V. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena, (1996) 11 SCC 439 has observed that time and again this Court has pointed that at the stage of framing charge, the Court should not enter upon a process of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility. The limited exercise during that stage is to find out whether the materials offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the Court to proceed further. In my opinion the ratio of the decisions, on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners has placed reliance, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court seems to be perfectly just and proper as well as based on cogent and sound reasons and this Court finds no illegality in the same, which calls for any interference in the present revision petition.
14. Consequently, the revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay Application No. 2901/2012 also stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II),J.
Manoj.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
MANOJ NARWANI JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT