The central legal point established in the judgment is the attribution of intention to cause death as per Indian Penal Code, Section 301, and the standard of inquiry for framing charges against the accused as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by the complainant (the first informant) against the judgment and ordef dated 9-7-2004 of the Allahabad high Court by which the charges framed against Akhilesh Chauhan (respondent 2) were set aside.

( 3 ) THE appellant Rajbir Singh lodged an FIR at 5. 10 p. m. on 29-9-2003 at ps New Agra, alleging that a day before, some brickbats were thrown in the compound of his brothers house from the house of his neighbour Ramraj rathore. On account of this incident, exchange of hot words took place between his father Hoti Lal and accused Ramraj Rathore, but the matter was pacified due to intervention of some persons of the locality. At about 4. 00 p. m. on 29-9-2003 ramraj Rathore and his relations Geetendra Singh and Prem Narain who were armed with firearms came near the shop of the complainant where his father was standing and all of them exhorted that Hoti Lal should be killed. Ramraj Rathore started firing towards Hoti Lal who after receiving the injuries fell down. Pooja balmiki, a girl belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, who had come to purchase some articles from the shop, also sustained firearm injuries and fell down. Both the injured were taken to the hospital but they died on the way. The accused continued to fire from their weapons and tried to kill the complainant and his family members as well. On account of the firing resorted to by the accused, a feeling of terror spread and people started running towards their houses. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the appellant a case was registered under section 302, Indian Penal Code and section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "the SC/st Act") at the police station. The name of Akhilesh Chauhan (respondent 2) was not mentioned in the FIR. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of some persons under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, wherein his name appeared and the allegation made against him was that after the incident of firing, one of the accused handed over his rifle to him and then he ran away from the spot.

( 4 ) AFTER the case had been committed to the Court of Session, the learned special Judge (the SC/st Act) by his order dated 11-5-2004 framed charges under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/st Act against Akhilesh Chauhan (respondent 2 ). Akhilesh Chauhan then filed a criminal revision under sections 397/401, Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court challenging the order by which charges had been framed against him. The High Court by a very brief order set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge and the relevant part of the order passed by the High Court is being reproduced below :"it was argued by the applicants counsel that the deceased has received injuries by way of accident as the firing was aimed at other persons and accidentally the deceased Pooja Balmiki was passing through that way and she was hit. The applicant neither intended to kill the deceased nor was she aimed at because of the reason that she was Scheduled Caste. The charges framed by the learned Special Judge (the SC/st Act), Agra is liable to be quashed as no offence under the said Act is made out against him. In view of the aforesaid discussion this revision is allowed and the order impugned dated 11-5-2004 is set aside. "feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, the complainant has filed the present appeal by special leave.

( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant (the complainant), learned counsel for Akhilesh Chauhan (respondent 2) and have perused the records. The only reason given by the High Court for setting aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge framing charges against respondent 2 is that the firing was not aimed at Pooja Balmiki but she accidentally received the injuries as she was passing through that way

Click Here to Read the rest of this document