Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1099 (RAJ)

Papiya @ Omprakash v. The State of Rajasthan

2002-05-30

O.P.BISHNOI

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. This revision has been filed by Papiya @ Omprakash and Tejaram against an order dated 23.5.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, whereby Papiya @ Omprakash was charged under Sections 427, 341, 323 and 307 of the I.P.C. and the accused Tejaram was charged under Section 506 of the I.P.C. 2. Thakra Ram Bishnoi, on 23.12.2000, lodged an ELR. at Police Station, Sanchore to the effect that there are criminal cases pending between the parties and on 23.12.2000, the accused persons armed themselves with 'Dhariya' and other weapons and the accused Papiya @ Omprakash chased the jeep of the complainant on his tractor and collided, as a result of which a damage of Rs. 500/- was caused to the jeep. Thereafter, the complainant and his companions left the jeep and took the heels. The accused persons, on their tractor, chased them with an intent to commit murder. Subsequently, the accused persons left the scene along with their tractor. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the only objection in respect of charges is to the effect that the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. has been framed without any basis. The learned counsel does not challenge the order which has been passed in respect of the charges framed under Sections 341, 323, 427 and 306 of the I.P.C. 4. After considering the matter, I am of the view that there was no proper material to frame a charge for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. It is true that there is evidence to the effect that the tractor as well as the jeep collided and slight damage was caused to the jeep. However, from this, it cannot be established that there was necessarily a desire to kill. May be that the complainant side was chased by the two accused persons, but in view of the fact that the accused persons were armed with "Dhariya" and other weapons and still no attempt was made to cause any injury by these weapons, goes to suggest that a case under Section 307 of the I.PC. was not made out, in the facts and circumstances of the case 5. Consequently, the revision petition filed by Tejaram is dismissed. The revision petition filed by Papiya @ Omprakash is partly allowed. The charges framed under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is set aside. was not made out, in the facts and circumstances of the case 5. Consequently, the revision petition filed by Tejaram is dismissed. The revision petition filed by Papiya @ Omprakash is partly allowed. The charges framed under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is set aside. The accused shall stand discharged of the said charges. The case shall stand transmitted to the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal under Section 228 of the Cr.PC., for trial of the other offences. Rest of the revision filed by Papiya @ Omprakash shall stand dismissed.Revision of 'T' Dismissed : Revision of 'P' partly allowed - Charge under section 307 quashed. *******