Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1425 (RAJ)

Bheru Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-12

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - Issue notice for final disposal. 2. Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept the notice on behalf of the State. He accepts the same. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only to the extent framing charges under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). 4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on a first information report lodged by complainant Shambhu Lal Meena at Police Station, Dhaulapani on 7.4.2003, the police investigated the matter and after investigation, filed the challan against the petitioner for the offences under Secs. 341, 504 IPC and Section 3(1 )(x) of the Act. The Trial Court took the cognizance of aforesaid offences against the petitioner and committed the case to learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter). The Trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences under Secs. 341 and 504 IPC and Section 307 IPC as also under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Act only on the ground that the complainant in his statement has stated that petitioner fired gun. From perusal of the challan papers, it appears that no gunshot injury has been suffered by the complainant, even during investigation, the police did not find the case of gunshot. According to the investigation, there was no evidence that the petitioner used gun aiming the complainant intending to cause the injuries with the knowledge that by such act, the death of person, to whom injuries caused, may occur. In the first information report, lodged by complainant Shambhu Lal Meena, it has been stated that on 5.4.2003 at about 7.00 P.M., while he was going on a motorcycle from, Chhoti Sadri to Kalakot, at that .time, Bherulal s/o Vardi Chand, the petitioner abused him, obstructed his way and caught hold him. The accused was having a gun; seeing the gun, he did not object.It was further alleged that accused wanted to get the signatures of the complainant on certain papers, which he did not agree and the petitioner fired the gun; on hearing sound of firing, certain persons came and rescued him. The accused was having a gun; seeing the gun, he did not object.It was further alleged that accused wanted to get the signatures of the complainant on certain papers, which he did not agree and the petitioner fired the gun; on hearing sound of firing, certain persons came and rescued him. Had he been not rescued by other persons, the accused would have caused injuries to him by butt of gun. From the FIR and statements even if it is taken in its entirety on its face value what complainant says is that had he not been rescued by Kesuram and Gopal Singh, the petitioner would have caused injuries to him by butt of gun. From this evidence, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner did act with such intention or knowledge, and in such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder. Even according to the complainant, no injury has been cased to him. It is only the apprehension of the complainant that if he had not been rescued by others, the petitioner would have caused injuries to him by butt of gun. Even it is not the case of complainant/prosecution that firing of gun was aimed towards the complainant. Thus, prima facie no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. There is prima facie no evidence that the petitioner committed any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled caste. In the circumstances, therefore, the order framing charges under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Order impugned to the extent framing charges against the petitioner for the offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the Act is hereby set aside. However, the charges framed by the Trial Court for the offences under Secs. 341 and 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are maintained. Stay petition stands disposed of.Petition partly allowed. *******