Important Point - At the stage of framing charge the Magistrate or a Judge concerned to analyze all the materials including pros and cons reliability or acceptability etc.

Accused-petitioners have preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. imploring annulment of impugned order dated 8th of September 2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra (for short, 'learned Court below'). By the order impugned, learned Court below has framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Section 304-II read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that on 12th of September 2012, respondent No.2 Shamsher Singh submitted a written report at Police Station Bhirani, inter-alia, stating therein that his neighbour Hawa Singh Beniwal and his two sons Mohan and Sunil @ Dholu gave beatings to his father Dharampal by fists and blows and as a result of which he died. On the basis of said report, FIR No.244/2016 was registered for offence under Section 302 IPC and during investigation report from Medical Board about the cause of death of Dharampal was sought in view of the fact that in the autopsy report no opinion for cause of death was spelt out. The viscera sent for chemical examination showed presence of ethyl alcohol and on that basis Medical Board opined that the probable cause of Dharampal’s death was intoxication. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against petitioners for offence under Section 304/34 IPC before the concerned Magistrate but the case being triable by the Court of Sessions it was committed and the learned Court below on 12th of January 2015 framed charges against the petitioners.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners earlier filed a revision petition before this Court assailing the order of framing charge under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC which came to be registered as S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.96/2015 (Hawa Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.). The said revision petition was partly allowed by this Court vide order dated 24th August 2015 with following observations:

^^mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i] ;kph@vfHk;qDrx.k gokflag oxS- dh vksj ls izLrqr ,dyihB QkStnkjh iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk la[;k 96@2-15 vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dj fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Hkknjk }kjk ls'ku izdj.k la[;k 29@2012 esa ;kph@vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 304 ikVZ&2 lifBr /kkjk 34 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vijk/k ds fy, vkjksi fojfpr fd, tkus ds Øe esa ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukafdr 12-01-2015 ek= iqu% cgl vkjksi lquus dh gn rd bl funsZ'k ds lkFk vikLr fd;k tkrk gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; izdj.k dh mijksDr rF;kRed fLFkfr ds foospu dh jks'kuh esa ;kph@vfHk;qDrx.k fdl gn rd vius d`R; ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gS] dks e/;utj j[krs gq,] mHk; i{k dks lqudj] vkjksfir vijk/k ds Øe esa i;kZIr rF;ksa o vk/kkjksa dk mYys[k djrs gq, iwoZ vkns'k ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk] iqu% Li"V ,oa fof/k&lEer vkns'k ikfjr djsaA**

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, when petitioners made endeavour before learned Court below for passing de novo order on charge, the learned Court below declined the prayer of petitioners by the order impugned. The learned Court below in the impugned order reiterated its earlier view that evidence available on record prima facie make out a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for framing charge under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. Thus, at the behest of petitioners, this second inning of litigation.

5. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. G.R. Punia, submits that a bare perusal of the impugned order makes it abundantly clear that the learned Court below has not at all cared to examine and consider the observations made by this Court while partly allowing the earlier revision petition (S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 96/2015) of the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that sans any external or internal injury on the person of the victim coupled with Histopathology report and the report of Medical Board showing cause of death due to consumption of ethyl alcohol, framing charge under Section 304 Part II IPC against the petitioners is per se not sustainable.

6. Learned counse