Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1736 (RAJ)

Kheta Ram v. State of Raj.

2004-12-06

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By this criminal revision petition under Section 401/397, CrPC, petitioners have challenged the order dated 110.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, Camp Barmer (for short ‘the trial Court’), whereby the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324/34 and 307/34 IPC and apart from the above noticed offences, a charge for offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act has also been framed against petitioner No. 2 Bhanwarlal alias Bhanwara Ram. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the challan papers including the injury report of injured Mahendra Singh. Injured Mahendra Singh suffered the following injuries vide Injury Report dated 25.05.2004:- “(1) Incised wound 6 cm. x 1 x muscle deep left forearm-simple-sharp; (2) Incised wound 3 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm over left leg upper part Antexlateratly-simple-sharp; (3) Incised wound 3cm x 0.2 cm x 0.3 cm Lower Part of left leg medially-Simple Sharp; (4) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm Lower part of left leg near No. 3-Simple Sharp; (5) Abrasion 0.5 x 0.2 cm over occipital region scalp-simple-Blunt.” According to the Medical Jurist, all the injuries are simple in nature. Injury Nos. 1 to 4 have been caused by the sharp-edged weapon and injury No. 5 by blunt object. The injuries by sharp-edged weapon are on non-vital part, more particularly on forearm and legs. However, injury No. 5 measuring 1.0.5 x 0.2 cm is over occipital region of scalp, which is simple in nature and caused by blunt object. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that looking to the nature of the injuries, it cannot be said that the petitioners had intention to cause the death of injured Mahendra Singh. The only injury on vital part is the abrasion, that too of superficial nature, which is evident from the fact that injury is 0.5 x 0.2 cm in dimension. To construe the offence under Section 307, IPC, it is essential that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder. To construe the offence under Section 307, IPC, it is essential that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder. Looking to the nature of the injuries, it cannot be inferred that petitioners had intention or knowledge that the injuries caused by them would result in death. In the circumstances, therefore, there being no sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34, IPC. So far as charges framed against the petitioners for the remaining offences, they have not been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The charge framed against the petitioners for the offence under Section 307/34, IPC cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 4. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Order of trial Court dated 10.o4.2004 is set aside to the extent of framing of charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 307/34, IPC. Stay petition also stands disposed of .