Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 538 (RAJ)

Panchuram v. State of Rajasthan

2003-04-10

O.P.BISHNOI

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against an order dated 4.2.1993 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Parbatsar whereby an order for framing charges under Sections 148, 447, 323/149, 325/149 and 307/149 was passed. 2. The FIR was lodged by Bhaguram S/o Rekha Ram Jat on 8.4.1999 at 1.30 p.m. at police station Parbatsar to the effect that on that day at about 10 a.m. when he, his brother Dularam and nephew Bhanwara Ram were working in their agricultural field, the petitioners came armed with iron-rods, 'Kulhadis' and 'Lathis' and attacked Bhaguram, Dularam and Bhanwara Ram and caused injuries to them. Further, it was stated that while leaving the place, the accused persons took away certain agricultural instruments with them. A case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323 and 379 was registered. 3. During investigation it was found that the allegation in respect of offence under Sections 379 was false. However, sometime after 12.4.1999 Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was added and challan was filed. 4. The learned trial court ordered to frame the charges in the aforesaid manner. 5. The grievance put up on behalf of the petitioners is that there was no material to frame a charge under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and to that extent the petitioners feel aggrieved. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the record of the case. As pointed out earlier there was no allegation of attempted murder initially, and the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code on 8.4.1999. Statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code were recorded up to 12.4.1999 and till then there was no material to add a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned Public Prosecutor Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was added after the X-ray Reports, in respect of the injuries caused to Dularam and Bhanwara Ram, were received. I find that even after the receipt of the X-ray Reports there was no material to suggest that the accused persons were motivated to commit any murder or any attempt on the life of any of the injured was actually made. I find that even after the receipt of the X-ray Reports there was no material to suggest that the accused persons were motivated to commit any murder or any attempt on the life of any of the injured was actually made. Dularam has received injuries which are all by blunt object and only one injury has resulted in fracture on the left fibula bone. Similarly, the X-ray Report and Injury Report of Bhanwara Ram go to show that all the injuries received by Bhanwara Ram were by blunt object and in respect of two injuries, fracture was detected. One of the injuries is on the right leg and the other is on the parietal region. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the grievous injury on the parietal region could prove dangerous to Bhanwara Ram and hence, there was justification for the charge under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. I find that the contention is unacceptable. There was no serious motive to cause murder nor there are circumstances to establish that the author of the injury in question wanted to murder Bhanwara Ram. As per the FIR the accused persons were wielding 'Kulhadis', 'Lathis' and iron-rods. Needless to say that 'Kulhadi' was the best weapon to achieve the object of murder. However, none of the three injured persons received even a single injury by a sharp-edged weapon. That goes to show that the 'Kulhadi' was used from the blunt side and that alone is sufficient to suggest that there was no intention to cause murder. It is not in dispute that after inflicting the injuries, which were found on the person of the said three injured the accused persons voluntarily left the place leaving the injured persons alive. It is not in dispute that Bhaguram received for injuries which were simple in nature and were caused by blunt object. 7. The learned trial court has observed that looking to the weapons, which were used by the accused persons, it is evident that the weapons were dangerous in nature and were capable of causing death. This type of logic is unsustainable. It is true that death could be caused by 'Kulhadi' and iron- rods but the fact remains that inspite of ample opportunity no such injury was caused which could result in fatality. This type of logic is unsustainable. It is true that death could be caused by 'Kulhadi' and iron- rods but the fact remains that inspite of ample opportunity no such injury was caused which could result in fatality. The fact that the 'Kulhadi' was issued (used ?) from the reverse side goes to show that the intention to commit murder was conspicuous by its total absence. As pointed out earlier there was no serious motive on the basis of which it can be inferred that the accused persons were out to commit murder. 8. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 4.2.2003 is partly set aside and the accused persons are discharged of the offence punishable under Section 307/149. The record of the case shall be sent to the concerned Magistrate under Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Revision partly allowed. *******