High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : H.R. Panwar
Nitin S/o Narain Das - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 900 of 2004
Decided On : 02/23/2005
Conspiracy - Criminal Law - IPC 109, 302, 34, 120-B, Arms Act 3/25 - The court discussed the framing of charges for the offences under Section 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act against accused Daud Khan; 302/34 and 3/25 of the Arms Act against accused Javed; and under Sections 109/302 IPC against the present petitioner. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. The court referred to legal principles from various cases to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a criminal conspiracy to commit murder, where the petitioner was alleged to have abetted in the commission of the crime and facilitated the main accused in the commission of the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found prima facie evidence against the petitioner to the effect that as per the illegal conspiracy hatched between him and other accused, he abetted in the commission of the crime and facilitated the main accused in the commission of the crime.
Issues: The issues involved the framing of charges for the offences under Section 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act against the accused, and whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused at the stage of framing the charge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in it.
H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 11.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Pratapgarh, Camp Nimbahera (for short, "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 36/2004 (35/2004), by which the trial Court framed charge for the offence under Sections 109/302 IPC against the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for disposal of this criminal revision, in a nut shell, are that there was an enmity between accused Daud Khan and Javed with deceased Nand Singh. These two accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Nand Singh alias Gogand and included petitioner Nitin Sindhi in the said conspiracy. It is alleged that as per the well-knitted plan, accused-petitioner Nitin, along with one Narendra Kumar, went to the house of deceased Nand Singh alias Gogand, and all the three went to Bothra Telecom & Restaurant. After some time, accused Daud and Javed came there. Accused Javed took out the knife and aiming it towards deceased Nand Singh, told that it was the last day of his life. Thereafter, accused Daud Khan opened fire from 32 Bore country-made pistol, which hit on the right lung of deceased Nand Singh and he died on the spot. After some time, Narendra Singh came and informed complainant Gajendra Singh about the incident. On this, complainant Gajendra Singh lodged an FIR with Police Station, Nimbahera. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons for the offences under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 120-B, IPC, as also under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. The learned trial Court, vide impugned order, framed charges for the offence under Section 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act against accused Daud Khan; 302/34 and 3/25 of the Arms Act against accused Javed; and under Sections 109/302 IPC against the present petitioner.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the record of the trial Court.
4. From the facts available on record, it is prima facie established that accused Daud Khan and Javed were nourishing ill-will against deceased Nand Singh. Present petitioner Nitin Sindhi was the friend of deceased Nand Singh and they used to go to Bothra Telecom and Restaurant. It has also come on record that petitioner Nitin Sindhi is also the friend of accused Daud Khan and Javed, who also used to go to the said restaurant where the incident took place. There is statement of one Balwant Singh recorded by the police wherein he has stated that on the fateful day, at about 6:30 PM, he had seen accused Daud Khan and petitioner Nitin talking together. Though he could not hear the talking but later on he came to know that petitioner Nitin, on being asked by accused Daud Khan, called the deceased at the said restaurant and facilitated accused Daud Khan and Javed to commit the murder of deceased Nand Singh. Accused Javed informed the police that as per the plan, petitioner Nitin Singh brought the deceased to the said restaurant and informed accused Daud Khan. Accused Daud Khan disclosed to the police that on the day of occurrence, he, accused Javed and petitioner Nitin Sindhi hatched a conspiracy that Nitin Sindhi would bring deceased Nand Singh at the said restaurant and Nand Singh would be put shot down. The facts on record clearly show that petitioner, alongwith Narendra Kumar, went to the house of the deceased. Petitioner entered inside the house of the deceased whereas Narendra Kumar remained standing out-side the house. Deceased sat on the pillion of the motorcycle driven by petitioner Nitin and Narendra Kumar went on his bike. Making rounds on the motorcycle, crossing the house of accused Daud Khan, the petitioner took the motorcycle at the said restaurant. After a couple of minutes, accused Daud Khan and Javed reached there and Killed Nand Singh. It is also pertinent to mention here that after th
Cases Referred : Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal
State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh
Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr.
Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.