Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 29021
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J
KAILASH SINGH SON OF SHRI ISHWAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLR / 1433 / 2023
Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP
The court upheld the trial court's framing of charges, clarifying that concurrent charges under Sections 307 and 326 IPC are permissible based on the evidence of grievous injury and firearm use.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 341, 324, 325, 326, and 307 - Arms Act - Sections 5/27 and 30 - Criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges against accused-petitioners for various offenses including grievous injury and use of firearms - The trial court's decision to frame charges was based on the evidence available, and the argument that charges under Sections 307 and 326 cannot run concurrently was rejected - The court clarified that the framing of charges does not require the minuscule scrutiny of witness statements and that the use of firearms suffices for charges under the Arms Act. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Charges - Framing of charges - The court must consider the material on record without detailed scrutiny of witness statements at the charge framing stage - The distinction between the act and its result under Section 307 IPC allows for concurrent charges with Section 326. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The criminal revision petition was filed against the order framing charges under various sections of IPC and the Arms Act against the accused-petitioners, who allegedly assaulted the complainant and used firearms, resulting in grievous injuries.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order was upheld, affirming that the framing of charges was justified based on the evidence and that concurrent charges under Sections 307 and 326 IPC were permissible.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the charges framed under IPC and the Arms Act, and whether concurrent charges under Sections 307 and 326 IPC could be maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court correctly framed charges based on the evidence, emphasizing that the framing of charges does not require exhaustive scrutiny of witness statements and that the use of firearms is sufficient for charges under the Arms Act.
Result: The present criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Order
18/01/2024
The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C . has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj) in Sessions Case No.12/2023 whereby, learned trial court has framed the charges against all the accused- petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 324, 325 , 326 & 307 of IPC and under Section 5/27 and Section 30 of Arms Act against petitioner-accused No.1 and 2 respectively.
Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that learned trial court has wrongly framed the charges against the accused-petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 324, 325 , 326 & 307 of IPC . He also submits that against the accused-petitioners Dharmendra Singh and Kailash Singh, charges under Section 5/27 and Section 30 of Arms Act were wrongly framed as there was no recovery of any firearm from the accused Kailash and Dharmendra Singh. He further submits that the formation of charges under Section 307 IPC is also illegal as the learned trial court has framed the charges under Section 326 of the IPC . The charges under Sections 307 & 326 cannot run concurrently, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that learned trial court has rightly framed the charges against the accused-petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
It is settled law that at the time of framing of charges, Court is required to consider the material available on the record. It is not required for the Court to minutely scrutinize the statements of the witnesses at the stage of framing of charges.
Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 28.07.2023 after discussing the evidence available on the record and considering the fact that accused-petitioners Kailash and Dharmendra Singh fired at injured Kanchan, directed to frame the charges against the accused-petitioners Kailash and Dharmendra Singh under Sections 307 IPC along with Section 5/27 & Section 30 of the Arms Act .
The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the charges under Sections 326 & 307 cannot run concurrently are totally misconceived. Section 307 of IPC makes a distinction between the act and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, if any, falls within ambit of Section 307 of IPC . In the present case, it is alleged that all the accused with common intention assaulted the complainant and injured and also used firearm, resulting into grievous injury to the injured Kanchan. Therefore, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both charges cannot be framed, is incorrect. The injuries caused to injured Kanchan is due to the use of firearm, resulting into grievous injuries. Further it is not essential that for framing charges under Sections 5/27 and Section 30 of the Arms Act , the recovery of firearm is necessary. The ingredients of above Sections do not require recovery of the weapon. It is enough for the Court to frame the charges under Section 5/27 and Section 30 of the Arms Act if there is any use of firearm. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 28.07.2023 has elaborately dealt with all the issues.
Therefore, the present criminal revision petition is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.
All pending applications also stand dismissed.
