Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 800 (RAJ)

Saleem v. State of Rajasthan

2001-05-07

SHASHI KANT SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision filed by complainant petitioner is directed against the order dated 18.7.1996, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, discharging the accused non-petitioners for offence under Sections 307 and 450 IPC and sending the case to C.J.M. for trial under Section 228 Cr.P.C. 2. Notice to the non-petitioners was issued. Mr. A.K. Gupta, appeared on behalf of accused non-petitioners. Record of the lower court was called for. Heard arguments and examined the record as well as the impugned order. 3. Brief facts relating to this Criminal Revision are that one Saleem lodged a written report at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar, alleging that accused persons named in the F.I.R. gave beatings to the injured persons with the intention to commit their murder. On that report, Police registered a case for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 342, 307 & 323 IPC. After usual investigation, challan was filed before the concerned Court against the accused persons for offence under Sections 147, 148, 450, 452, 323, 326/149, 324/149 and 325/149 IPC. Case was committed to Sessions Court and ultimately matter came before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, who discharged the accused persons as mentioned above, hence this revision. 4. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar is illegal. He has wrongly discharged the accused persons for the offence under Sections 307 and 450 IPC. It is urged that while doing so, it was incumbent upon the Court to give cogent reasons. 5. It is further argued that accused persons inflicted seven injuries on the person of injured Zamil and caused grievous hurt on his head with an intention to commit his murder but the learned Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter, and simply held in his order that from the statements of the witnesses, it could not be inferred that the accused persons had intention to commit murder of Zamil. It is urged that even this fact was not appreciated and discussed by the lower court that Zamil had a fracture on his head. It is also not appreciated and discussed what witnesses have said about the incident and how the Court came to this conclusion that by the statements of witnesses, it can not be inferred that accused had the intention to commit the murder. It is also not appreciated and discussed what witnesses have said about the incident and how the Court came to this conclusion that by the statements of witnesses, it can not be inferred that accused had the intention to commit the murder. It is urged that accused persons had used sharp edged weapon in this `marpit' and caused grievous hurt to the injured persons and have also caused injuries on the head of injured persons. Learned Lower Court should have framed the charge for offence under Sections 307 and 450 IPC against the accused persons and should not have discharged and sent the matter to C.J.M. under Section 228 Cr.P.C., therefore, this Court should now pass an order and direct the learned Additional Sessions Judge to frame charge against these accused persons for offence under Sections 307 and 450 IPC. 6. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of accused non-petitioners that this Court in revisional jurisdiction should not pass any such order and should not direct the learned Additional Sessions Judge to frame charge for offence under Sections 307 and 450 IPC. It is urged that the learned lower Court has rightly discharged these accused persons for those offences. 7. I have examined the entire record and perused the impugned order. In my view the learned Sessions Judge has not given its cogent reasons for discharging the accused persons for the offence under Sections 307 and 450 IPC. Even the Court has not discussed about the grievous injury caused to injured Zamil on head and has not discussed about the evidence adduced by the prosecution and other circumstances like nature of weapon etc. about the intention of the accused before discharging the accused persons. It was incumbent upon the learned Judge to have discussed the entire evidence and to give cogent reasons in his order. I am of the view that learned Judge has not discussed the matter in right perspective and committed an error in passing the impugned order. 8. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated 18.7.1996, is quashed and set-aside and case is remanded back to the lower court to decide the same afresh. 9. Registry is direct to send a copy of this order along with the record immediately.Revision Allowed. *******