Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 3758
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1118/2024
1. Purkha Ram S/o Sh. Rewant Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Rajasar Bikan, Ps Sardarshahar, Dist. Churu, Raj.
2. Ramkumar S/o Sh. Purkha Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Rajasar Bikan, Ps Sardarshahar, Dist. Churu, Raj.
3. Deepa Ram S/o Sh. Revant Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Rajasar Bikan, Ps Sardarshahar, Dist. Churu, Raj.
4. Sultan S/o Sh. Lalaram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Rajasar Bikan, Ps Sardarshahar, Dist. Churu, Raj.
----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.R. Saharan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
06/09/2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order of charge dated 20.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarshahar, Churu in Sessions Case No.85/2021, whereby charges have been framed for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 427/149 and 307/149 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no evidence at all to attract the offence under Section 307/149 IPC. Doctor has found simple injury on the person of injured. There is counter case as well. The finding of the learned trial Court is based on memo of recovery, which was effected after five months of the incident.
4. The law relating to assessment of prosecution evidence collected during investigation at the stage of framing of charge is well settled. Roving enquiry and trustworthiness of the prosecution case cannot be looked into at this stage. If the prosecution evidence prima facie discloses commission of offences, for which, charges have been framed, the Court cannot look into the defense version and defense evidences to discharge the accused. If the prosecution evidence as it is does not disclose commission of offence, for which, charges have been framed, the order of discharge can be passed.
5. According to FIR bearing No.229 dated 03.06.2018 registered with Police Station Sardarshahar, District Churu, the informant along with his friend Bharat Singh had got co-villager Ram Kumar intercepted by the excise officials when he was engaged in unauthorised business of wines. For that Raj Kumar was having a grudge. On 02.06.2018, informant, Bharat Singh and Jugal Singh were going on a Bolero vehicle of the informant. The accused persons named in the FIR armed with lathi etc. were standing near the shop of Ram Kumar and as soon as the informant reached there, they started beating on the bonnet of the vehicle. Kerosene was brought from the shop of Ram Kumar and was sprinkled on the vehicle and the vehicle was put on fire. When the informant and others started fleeing, the accused persons assaulted with lathi etc. Co-accused Lala Ram allegedly fired from pistol twice, however, no injury was caused to anyone.
6. Witnesses Bharat Singh and Jugal Singh stated before the police that the accused persons attempted to throw them on the burning vehicle just to commit their murder. Same is the statement of informant before the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. The allegation discloses a case of intentional attempt to commit murder. If no injury was found on the person of the injured of burn or any injury caused by fire arm that would not make non- attraction of the provisions of Section 307 IPC. In the event of commission of injury, punishment is different. Trustworthiness of the evidence of the witnesses before the police cannot be looked into at this stage.
7. Hence, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.
8. Nothing observed here-in-above shall prejudice the trial.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
22-deep/-
