Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 38 (RAJ)

Prabhu Das Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2008-01-06

CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated Sept. 16,2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jaipur City Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2008 by which charge was framed against accused petitioner under section 306 Indian Penal Code. 2. I have gone through the order of the trial court framing charge against the accused petitioner. Deceased and the accused petitioner are both real brothers and they were previously having enmity with each other. Cases were registered in the Police but on finding frivolous the police submitted final report. The allegation in the instant matter is that the accused petitioner instigated Mahaveer Singh to commit suicide. Suicide note has also been filed along with this petition. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed a detailed order giving reasons for framing charge against the accused petitioner under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. Unless evidence is recorded nothing can be said about the involvement of the accused petitioner in the instant matter. Prima facie the prosecution has been able to show that the accused petitioner instigated Mahaveer to commit suicide. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007 (3) Cr. Couret Cases 706(SC) , Devender Singh v. State of Haryana (2007 AIAR (Criminal) 30 , Suraj Karan and others v. State of Rajasthan 2008 (1) R.Cr.D. 468 (Raj. ) Shanker Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan (2006 ) 1 RCC 442 , Heera and 5 others v. State of Rajasthan (2000 Wester Law Cases (Raj.)414 , Hari Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan 2000(2) RCC 1452 , Krishna Kumar Mishra v. State of Rajasthan 1998 RCC 745 Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh RLW 20002(4) SC 551 Surendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan RCC 2002 (2) 965 Gautam Raj Mehta v. State of Rajasthan Cr.L.R.(Raj.)1984 page 646 and Navratan Mal v. State of Rajasthan RCC 2006 (2) 962. 4. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court rightly framed the charge against the accused petitioner on the basis of the material available on record. This court in revisional power should not interfere with the order framing charge against the accused petitioner. 5. I have gone through the cases relied upon by the learned counsel and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. This court in revisional power should not interfere with the order framing charge against the accused petitioner. 5. I have gone through the cases relied upon by the learned counsel and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court. The Apex Court in Om Wati v. State AIR 2001 SC 1507 held as under ... it would not be safe at this stage to deprive the prosecution in proving its case on the basis of direct evidence,the statement of the deceased claimed to be admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act and the other documents including the inquest report allegedly disclosing the infliction of injuries on the person of the deceased which resulted in his death. The acceptance of the opinion of the doctors, as incorporated in the post more report for the cause of death of deceased being hepatic failure following viral hepatitis' cannot be accepted on its face value at this stage. Therefore the order of the High Court would be illegal and liable to be set aside. The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law. " 6. For these reasons the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Since main case has been disposed, the stay application also stands disposed of.Revision Dismissed - Uncalled for Litigation Deprecated. *******