1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

: O R D E R :

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.10/2014

(Nemichand & Ors. Vs. State & Anr.)

Date of Order

::

08.12.2014

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, for the petitioners.

Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP.

The instant revision petition has been filed by the

petitioners to challenge the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagaur whereby the learned

trial Court framed charges against the petitioner No.1 – Nemi

chand @ Nema Ram and petitioner NO.2 – Suresh for offence

under Sections 341, 323, 324 and in alternative 323/34, 325

and in alternative 325/34, 320 and in alternative 302/34 I.P.C.

and against the petitioner No.3 for offence under Section 341,

460 and 302 and 302/34 I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

2

argued that the FIR No.361/2013 was registered against the

petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and

451 I.P.C. and during investigation deceased Onkar Ram died

on 02.07.2013, therefore, the police filed challan against

accused petitioners Nemaram and Suresh for offence under

Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 302/34 I.P.C. and against

Narshi Ram gave negative report.

After committing the case for trial the Court of Addl.

Sessions Judge, Nagaur by the concerned Magistrate, an

application was filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for taking

cognizance against Narshi Ram and learned trial Court vide order

dated 24.10.2013 allowed the said application filed by the

complainant and took cognizance against Narshi Ram also.

According to learned counsel for the petitioners, after

taking cognizance against Narshi Ram, the arguments were

heard for framing charges and after hearing arguments, learned

trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the

offences as aforesaid vide order dated 17.12.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

argued that the trial Court has committed a gross illegality while

framing charges under Setion 302 I.P.C. agaisnt the petitioners

3

because the injury which is said to be caused by the petitioners

was not cause of death in ordinary course of nature. It is also

argued that for the incident took place on 28.6.2013, FIR was

registered for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 451 of I.P.C.

and on the same day the deceased Onkar Ram was examined at

Govt. Hospital, Nagaur and as per the injury report, all the

injuries were simple in nature except one grievous injury on right

thigh of deceased. The deceased Onkar Ram was 75 years old

and due to grievous injury on right thigh, he was admitted in the

private hospital, Yash Aman Hospital, Nagaur where during

treatment, he died on 02.07.2013. The counsel for the

petitioners submits that the deceased was not died due to the

injury caused in the incident but in fact deceased died due to

negligence on the part of the doctors of the private hospital but

at the time of framing charge, the trial Court did not consider

the above aspect of the matter and erroneously framed the

charges for offence under Sections 302 I.P.C., against the

petitioners, therefore, no sustainable in law.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the

prayer and submitted that the charge under Section 302 I.P.C.

was framed on the basis of the evidence collected during the

investigation and there was no question to assess the

evidenciary value for the purpose of framing the charge under

4

Section 302 I.P.C., therefore, the order impugned does not

require any interference.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of

the opinion that for framing charge, the evidence collected in the

investigation is required to be taken into considered by the trial

Court. Admittedly in this case, the injuries were inflicted by the

petitioners to the deceased on 28.06.2013 and as