Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 776 (RAJ)

Roop Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-07

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.01.2006 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 122/2005, whereby the trial Court framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 202, IPC, however, refused to frame charge for the offence under Section 212, IPC on the ground that there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner harboured or concealed any person to whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender. Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charge for the offence under Section 202, IPC, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned as also challan papers. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has specifically concluded in the order impugned that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner harboured or concealed any person to whom he knows or has reason to believe to be an offender. Accused Om Prakash is said to be the brother-in-law of the petitioner. There is no evidence that the petitioner had harboured or concealed accused Om Prakash being his brother-in-law in any manner knowing him to be or having reason to believe him to be the offender. This being the position, Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner knowing or having reason to believe that offence has been committed by accused Om Prakash, intentionally omitted to give any information respecting that offence. 4. From perusal of challan papers, it no where appears that the petitioner had any knowledge or has reason to believe that his brother-in-law has committed an offence, that being the position, there arise no question of intentional omission to give information respecting that offence. A country made pistol alleged to have been recovered at the instance of Om Prakash from the roof of house of the petitioner which was said to have been concealed under the brick-let. A country made pistol alleged to have been recovered at the instance of Om Prakash from the roof of house of the petitioner which was said to have been concealed under the brick-let. From the perusal of challan papers, it no where appears that the petitioner in any manner acquired the knowledge or had the knowledge or had a reason to believe that the said country made pistol was concealed by Om Prakash on the roof of his house. There is no evidence that if at all Om Prakash had an occasion to conceal the country made pistol on the roof of the house of the petitioner, the petitioner had any knowledge of such concealment. In the circumstances, therefore, the very essential ingredients for the offence under Section 202, IPC are not made out from the challan papers. Even the evidence sought to be produced by the prosecution during trial of the case remain uncotnroverted. There is absolutely no evidence to presume that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 202, IPC. In the circumstances therefore, in my view, the order impugned framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 202, IPC is not sustainable. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 12.01.2006 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 122/2005 framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 202, IPC is hereby set aside. The petitioner is discharged of the offence under Section 202, IPC. Stay application also stands disposed of .