JUDGMENT :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 11.01.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ladnun District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.16/2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be discharged from the offence under Section 307, 332, 353 IPC.”

3. The genesis of the present controversy is traceable to an FIR No.201/2017 registered at Police Station, Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur, against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 307, 332 & 353 IPC and Section 3, 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with an incident wherein the accused is said to have opened fire upon the police team with an intention to kill the members of the police team, while the police tried to stop the vehicle in question; whereafter, the police, after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 307, 332 & 353 IPC and Sections 3/25 & 7/27 of the Arms Act.

4. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 11.01.2022, the learned trial court framed charges against the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 307, 332 & 353 IPC, against which the present petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court suffers from an infirmity of misreading of evidence, as the offence under Section 307 IPC is prima facie not made out, on the ground that neither the investigating officer recovered any weapon from the petitioner nor has he found empty cartridge of the weapon from the place of incident.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is a lack of intention or knowledge on the part of the petitioner which is a fundamental ingredient of Section 307 IPC. Similarly, as per learned counsel, the petitioner should also not be made liable under Sections 332 & 353 IPC, as the necessary ingredients constituting the offence under the said provisions are also absent.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:

7.1 Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Ors., (1979) SCC (Cri) 609, relevant portion of which reads as under:

“8. The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by a recent decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, 1977 CriLJ 1606 where Untwalia, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows :-

Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence; if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.

9. In the case of K.P. R