JUDGMENT :

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 112/2021 whereby, charges have been framed against the petitioners for offence under Sections 341, 323, 343, 365, 394/34, 341/120b, 323/120b, 365/120b, 366/120B, 394/120B IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Chunni Devi W/o Lala Ram filed a written report to the effect that the accused persons forcibly entered into her house and kidnapped her sister’s daughter Manisha and assaulted her. After due investigation, chargesheet came to be filed by the police and case was committed to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 01.12.2023 framed charges for the aforesaid offences.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the extent of framing of charge for offence under Section 394/34 IPC and it is argued that offence under Section 394 IPC i.e. voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. It is submitted that in the FIR so also in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is no allegation on behalf of complainant for stealing any ornament and it is only in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the complainant has alleged that the accused took away locket from her and therefore, the trial court framed the charge under Section 394/34 IPC. He placed reliance on judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nosad Khan @ Sonu Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018(1) CJ (Cri) (Raj.) 236. Therefore, the impugned order framing charges against the petitioners is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court and argued that the police after thorough investigation submitted challan against the petitioners and the trial court after going through the entire record, has framed charges against the petitioners. Therefore, the order of framing charge passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity and all other questions raised in regard to the present case are to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage.

5. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. From the perusal of documents on record, it is evident that complainant Manisha in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that accused forcibly entered into the house and took away her ornaments. The said statement is also corroborated by other witnesses. After perusing the documents and studying the evidence collected during investigation, this Court is of the opinion that trial court has not committed any error in framing charges against the petitioners. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court only has to see whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, makes way for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

7. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of the judgment has laid down the principles which are to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C., which are as below :

"(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The te