SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 701

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Rajesh, S/o. Kalyan Prasad and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 793 Of 2005 Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 926 Of 2005
Decided On : 31-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Amar Kumar and Ms. Savita Nathawat, Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Mr. Fateh Chand Meena, Mr. Prahlad Sharma, Mr. Susheel Pujari, Mr. Atul Sharma-PP.
For the Respondent: Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma, Mr. Atul Sharma-PP.

The court established that a prima facie case is sufficient for framing charges, and the Public Prosecutor must conduct the prosecution in accordance with the law.

Headnote:

Criminal - Charges Framing - Sections 225, 226, 227, 228 Cr.P.C. - The court emphasized the necessity of a prima facie case for framing charges, highlighting the role of the Public Prosecutor and the standards for evaluating evidence at this stage.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant reported an assault and robbery at his home by unknown assailants. Subsequent investigations led to the arrest of several individuals, including the petitioners, based on witness statements and supplementary chargesheets.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioners to proceed with the charges, rejecting their claims of wrongful implication and illegal detention.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in framing charges against the petitioners and discharging other accused based on the evidence presented.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that at the charge framing stage, the evidence must only suggest a prima facie case, and the prosecution's duty to present its case is mandatory under the Cr.P.C.

Result: The court rejected the petitioners' revision petition and allowed the state's petition, directing the trial court to proceed with the case against the discharged accused.

ORDER :

(Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.) :

For convenience of exposition, this order is divided in the following parts: -

INDEX

(1) Factual Matrix

(2) Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners

(3) Submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor

(4) Submissions on behalf of the Accused/Respondents in Criminal Revision Petition No. 926/2005

(5) Analysis, Discussions and Reasonings

(A) Position of verdicts of Apex Court on the point of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C.

(B) Role of Public Prosecutor and Provisions of Sections 225 and 226 Cr.P.C.

(6) Conclusion.

(7) Directions.

1. Both these petitions are arising out of the impugned order dated 30.07.2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karauli in Sessions Case No. 36/2002 by which charges have been framed against the petitioners-Rajesh, Kalla @ Ramgilas, Chatru @ Chaturbhuj and Pappu @ Chandra Prakash for the offence under Sections 148, 458, 323, 324, 326, 396 and 397 IPC and under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act. At the same time, by the same impugned order, the accused persons namely Shiv Singh, Sodhe @ Soren Singh and Ramkhiladi @ Kakaiya have been discharged from the offence(s) with which they were chargesheeted.

2. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.07.2005, Rajesh, Kalla @ Ramgilas, Chatru @ Chaturbhuj and Pappu @ Chandra Prakash have approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.793/2005 and aggrieved by the same order, the State has preferred S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 926/2005. Since both these petitions are arising out of the same order, hence after hearing the arguments of both the sides, both the petitions are being decided by this common order.

Factual Matrix:-

3. Facts, in brief, of the case are that the complainant-Brij Mohan lodged a report with Police Station Sapotra, District Karauli on 13.01.2002 stating therein that at about 2:30 A.M. while he was sleeping in the corridor of his house and his wife and daughter were sleeping inside a room and his son and his wife were sleeping in the another room, 5-6 persons entered his house and assaulted him. One of the accused persons tried to inflict knife injury on his person which he resisted by his hand, while the other assailants attacked him with lathis. Hearing his hue and cry, when his wife and son came out of their rooms, the assailants attacked them as well with knife and lathis and inflicted injury on them, due to which their condition became serious. The ornaments worn by his wife Vijay Laxmi and daughter Rekha were taken by the assailants and they also took the cash and ornaments from the box lying in the room. The assailants were wearing pants and shirts and were aged between 25-35 years and he did not know the assailants, but he can identify them, after looking at them. It was also stated in the report that the neighbours -Govind Singhal and Roopchand also came there upon hearing the commotion at his house.

Upon this report, the crime No. 7/2002 was registered at Police Station Sapotra, District Karauli for the offence(s) under Sections 396 and 397 IPC and during the course of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners namely Rajesh, Kalla @ Ramgilas, Chatru @ Chaturbhuj and Pappu @ Chandra Prakash and thereafter, first supplementary chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner-Shiv Singh and second supplementary chargesheet was submitted against Sodhe @ Soren Singh, Kakaiya @ Ramkhiladi. All three charge-sheets were consolidated and thereafter the order impugned has been passed by which the charges have been framed against the above accused persons namely Rajesh, Kalla @ Ramgilas, Chatru @ Chaturbhuj and Pappu @ Chandra Prakash and other co-accused persons namely Shiv Singh, Son de @ Soren Singh and Ramkhiladi @ Kakaiya have been discharged from all the charges. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners:-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the FIR, the complainant has not na

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top