Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1243 (RAJ)

Ram Kishore v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-27

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Both the criminal revision petitions under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code hereinafter) are directed against the order dated 16.07.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Merta (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 01/2004 (24/2003) whereby the trial Court framed the charges against petitioner Ram Kishore for the offences under Sections 465, 469, 384 and 120-B IPC and against petitioner Sohan Lal for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149 326/149, 307/149 and 384/120-B IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charges, both the petitioners have filed the aforesaid two revision petitions. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to both the revision petitions are that non-petitioner No. 2 Bhanwar Lal filed a written FIR on 03.05.2002 with Police Station, Merta Road, inter alia, alleging therein that on 02.05.2002 in the noon, there was some construction work going on at his house; his brother Ramchandra was going for purchasing goods, at that time, Rampal Bana called his brother Ramchandra, he (Ramchandra) went to him; Pukhraj Bana, Shivji Ram, Shankerlal and Mohini were also standing there. All these persons suddenly attacked Ramchandra. Pukhraj caught hold Ramchandra and Rampal having knife, inflicted knife blow in the abdomen of Ramchandra; at that time, he alongwith his sister Ram Pyari and one Bhanwar Lal reached there; they tried to rescue Ramchandra, upon which Shivji Ram inflicted lathi blows on his hand and skull; Shankerlal inflicted injury to his sister; Rampal had a knife, Mohini had a lathi, she was calling her sons that “MERE PUTRON TUM RAMCHANDRA KA KHOON PEE JAO”. Sukhdev also shouting “MARO MARO”. On this FIR, the police ensued the investigation and after investigation, filed challan against the petitioners and others. By order dated 16.07.2004, on perusal of the material placed before it, the trial Court framed the charges as noticed above. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. 4. So far as petitioner Sohan Lal is concerned, he has been named in the FIR amongst the assailants. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. 4. So far as petitioner Sohan Lal is concerned, he has been named in the FIR amongst the assailants. Non-petitioner No. 2 complainant has categorically stated that Shivji Ram, Shankerlal, Pukhraj, Ramlal, Sohanlal, the present petitioner and Mohini had lathies and knives in their hands and came to the complainants house, they assaulted complainants uncle Ratan Ram, who suffered numerous injuries. However, again they assaulted the complainant and caused injuries to Ramchandra, who was taken to hospital at Ajmer and subsequently he succumbed to injuries. Police filed the challan against the other persons. However, the investigation against petitioner Ram Kishore was pending under Section 173 (8) of the Code. 5. So far as petitioner Ram Kishore is concerned, the allegation against him is that he managed a photograph of Ratni alias Rattu with him and on the basis of fictitious photograph, parents of Ratni alias Rattu were alleged to have been blackmailed by other co-accused. I have carefully gone through the statement of Ratni alias Rattu, who clearly stated that she has never got her photograph with petitioner Ram Kishore, however, in order to malign her, Pukhraj and his brother Rampal shown the alleged photograph to her father and some villagers and demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-from her father saying that on non-fulfillment of demand, alleged photograph will be sent to her in-laws house so as to damage her reputation. At any rate, Ratni alias Rattu has stated that she has not got her photograph with petitioner Ram Kishore. There is no evidence as to how Ratnis photograph alleged to have been shown with petitioner Ram Kishore. At any rate, there is no evidence that it was petitioner Ram Kishore, who managed the photograph with that of Ratni. There is no allegation that petitioner Ram Kishore tried to extort Rs. 10,000/-from father of Ratni. So far as allegation of attempt to commit extortion the money amounting to Rs. 10,000/-from the father of Ratni is concerned, this allegation is against Pukhraj and one Rampal. Petitioner Ram Kishore has been charged with the criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. There is no allegation that petitioner Ram Kishore tried to extort Rs. 10,000/-from father of Ratni. So far as allegation of attempt to commit extortion the money amounting to Rs. 10,000/-from the father of Ratni is concerned, this allegation is against Pukhraj and one Rampal. Petitioner Ram Kishore has been charged with the criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. There is absolutely no evidence of criminal conspiracy, though it is difficult to have a direct evidence of criminal conspiracy but there must be some evidence suggesting the criminal conspiracy in order to prosecute a person. In the instant case, on going through the whole of the record, I do not find any evidence connecting petitioner Ram Kishore either with the development of photograph of himself with Ratni or demanding a sum of Rs. 10,000/-from the father of Ratni. Merely because a photograph of petitioner Ram Kishore alleged to have been shown with Ratni cannot be presumed that it was the petitioner, who developed the photograph and hatched a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused for extorting a sum of Rs. 10,000/-from the father of Ratni. 6. The trial Court framed the charges against petitioner Ram Kishore on the strength of statement of one Siya Ram, who stated that in town Ren, he having photo studio in the name and style Shiv Photo Studio since 1997, has snapped three coloured photographs of Ratni in different poses, negatives of which are with him. He further stated that he has never snapped photographs of Ratni with Ram Kishore. On careful perusal of statement of Siya Ram, I do not find that his statement in any way connects petitioner Ram Kishore Prima facie with the commission of the offence. However, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant contended that a supplementary statement of Ratni was recorded, wherein she stated that petitioner Ram Kishore has shown her photograph to some villagers but none of the villagers stated that it was Ram Kishore, who has shown the photograph of Ratni with his own in order to extort the money. On such a vague allegation that too in supplementary statement, it cannot form a basis to presume that petitioner Ram Kishore has committed an offence. In the circumstances, therefore, the order framing charges against petitioner Ram Kishore cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 7. On such a vague allegation that too in supplementary statement, it cannot form a basis to presume that petitioner Ram Kishore has committed an offence. In the circumstances, therefore, the order framing charges against petitioner Ram Kishore cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 7. So far as petitioner Sohan Lal is concerned, he has been named by complainant Bhanwar Lal s/o Mukna Ram, injured Ratna Ram, Ramchandra, Sugna Ram, Bhanwar s/o Uda Ram, Ratni alias Rattu, Ram Dev etc. that he participated in the commission of the crime having lathi in his hand and inflicted injuries as also he is one of the persons, who has tried to extort the money by blackmailing the alleged photograph of Ratni. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of the charges, roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. However, while considering the question of framing the charges, the Court had undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. If the Court on the basis of material on record, come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charges exists. At the stage of framing of the charges, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. At the stage of framing of the charge, what the Court has to see is whether there is sufficient ground to presume that accused has committed an offence or not. Even on the basis of strong suspicion founded on the material before the Court, the charge may be framed. 8. At the stage of framing of the charge, what the Court has to see is whether there is sufficient ground to presume that accused has committed an offence or not. Even on the basis of strong suspicion founded on the material before the Court, the charge may be framed. 8. In Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 CrLR (SC) 118, the Honble Supreme Court held that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. 9. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 52 , the Apex Court held that even on the basis of strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the Court can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that event be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by them. 10. In State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & Ors., JT 2000 (Suppl. 10. In State of Delhi vs. Gyan Devi & Ors., JT 2000 (Suppl. 2) SC 635, the Honble Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by prosecution nor it is for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. The Court further held that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie a case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused. It was further held by the Honble Apex Court that the High Courts power to quash the charge should not be exercised except for strong reasons like interest of justice and avoiding abuse of process of the Court. 11. In State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors., 1997 (4) SCC 393 , the Honble Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It was further held by Their Lordships that at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. 12. Thus, keeping in view the settled position of law and the factual matrix of the case as discussed hereinabove. I am of the considered view that there is prima facie sufficient material and ground to presume that petitioner Sohan Lal has committed the offences charged with. 13. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 498/2004 filed by petitioner Ram Kishore is allowed. Order impugned framing charge against petitioner Ram Kishore is set aside. He is discharged of the offences under Sections 465, 469, 384 and 120-B IPC. Stay petition being S.B. cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 237/2004 stands disposed of . 13. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 498/2004 filed by petitioner Ram Kishore is allowed. Order impugned framing charge against petitioner Ram Kishore is set aside. He is discharged of the offences under Sections 465, 469, 384 and 120-B IPC. Stay petition being S.B. cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 237/2004 stands disposed of . Revision Petition No. 548/2004 filed by petitioner Sohan Lal is hereby dismissed. Ad interim stay order dated 19.08.2004 is vacated and the stay petition being S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 260/2004 stands dismissed. Record of the trial Court be returned forthwith.