Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1104 (RAJ)

Buta Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-11

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H. R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.03.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, Distt. Sriganganagar (for short ‘the trial Court’ hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.12/2005 whereby the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 307, 365, 323, 341, 342, 427 and 336/34, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the order impugned dated 18.03.2005 framing charge as also the record of the trial Court. 3. The allegation against Petitioners No.1 Buta Singh and No. 2 Baldev Singh is that they inflicted injuries to Vishwadeep and complainant Sajjan Kumar by butt and barrel of gun respectively. So far as Petitioner No.3 Dr. Gurpreet Singh is concerned, he was said to be the driver of the jeep in which all the accused were chasing the jeep of complainant Sajjan Kumar and caused damage to the jeep of the complainant by heating from rear. Learned Counsel for the petitioners confined his challenge only to the extent of framing charge for the offence under Section 307, IPC 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State could not point out anything as to how the charge under Section 307, IPC for causing injuries by butt and barrel of gun can be made out, more particularly when the injuries suffered by Vishwadeep are bruises and abrasions, which all are simple in nature and caused by blunt object making the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC and injury caused to complainant Sajjan Kumar is abrasion, which is simple in nature and caused by blunt object. It is the case of the complainant that Petitioners No.1 and 2 also were armed with guns. Despite having armed with guns, they did not open fire by gun towards the complainant. On the contrary, the injuries have been caused by butt and the barrel of gun which clearly goes to suggest that the petitioners had no intention to cause death of the complainant. In the circumstances, therefore, the very essential ingredients of Section 307, IPC are missing in the instant case. On the contrary, the injuries have been caused by butt and the barrel of gun which clearly goes to suggest that the petitioners had no intention to cause death of the complainant. In the circumstances, therefore, the very essential ingredients of Section 307, IPC are missing in the instant case. Section 307, IPC provides 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. There is absolutely no evidence that the petitioners with an intention or knowledge caused injuries by which death could have occurred. On the contrary, despite the fact that the petitioners were armed with guns, yet caused simple injuries by the blunt object i.e., butt and barrel of the gun and did not fire the gun. In the circumstances, therefore, prima facie there is no ground to presume that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC 5. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order impugned to the extent of framing charge under Section 307, IPC is set aside. However, the order framing charges for the remaining offences noticed above except the offence under Section 307, IPC, is affirmed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with Section 228, CrPC. The stay petition stands disposed of .