Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 77 (RAJ)

Baja Ram @ Bajrang Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-11

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners Baja Ram @ Bajrang Lal s/o Panna Ram and Gyana Ram s/o Kistoora Ram, both b/c Jat, r/o village Ghatri, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu against the order dated 22.01.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.13/2008, whereby the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners under section 341,323, 325/34 and 308/34 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision petition are that the SHO , Police Station Chhapar , recorded the 'parcha bayan' of Smt.Pooni Devi w/o Padama Ram, wherein she stated interalia that she has no issue and she has given her fields to other person for cultivation. She further alleged that accused persons want to grab her land and therefore, they are in enmity with her. It was further alleged that at about 09.00 AM, when she was going to her field with Shivali and reached near Behar then sons of her brother-in-law viz. Baja Ram and Gyana Ram stopped her and started beating her, due to which she fell on the ground and sustained injuries. It was further alleged that the accused persons gave beating by hand and legs. 3. On the basis of this parcha bayan, the SHO, Police Station, Chhapar, lodged FIR No.86/2008 and started investigation. After completion of the investigation, the SHO filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the above offences before the concerned Magistrate who took cognizance against the petitioners and committed the case for trial to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh. The learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners for the above offences vide order dated 22.01.2009. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh. The learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners for the above offences vide order dated 22.01.2009. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.13/2008, suffers from illegality irregularity and impropriety on the ground that no case is made out for framing the charge against the petitioner under section 309 IPC, as no injury was found on the vital part of the injured and in the absence of any injury on the vital part of the injured, the order of the learned trial court for framing the charge under section 308 IPC is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments: 1. Chhotu v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2009 (2)WLC 379 . 2. Sunil Kumar v. N.C.T. of Delhi, (1998)8 SCC 557 . 3. Alok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 299. 4. Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 Cr. L.R. (SC) 118 . The learned Public Prosecutor contended that for framing of the charge under section 308 IPC the injury report in itself is not the relevant document but the entire record , including the first information report and the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, are also to be considered. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that as per the X-ray report there was a fracture on the right elbow of Pooni Devi and further there was a fracture of both upper ends of tibia and fibula bones and fracture of 06th rib on the right side of the chest and there were about 5 injuries on the body of Puni Devi having the age of 65 years and as per the first information report both the petitioners Baja Ram and Gyana Ram inflicted those injuries and during the course of the incident injured Pooni Devi fell on the ground and injured remained admitted in PBM Hospital, Bikaner for about one month from the date of the incident. Therefore, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case , the impugned order dated 22.01.2009 is sustainable. 5. Therefore, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case , the impugned order dated 22.01.2009 is sustainable. 5. I have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In Chhotu's case (supra), after perusing the injury report, the learned trial court discharged the accused under section 308 IPC which was confirmed by this Court. The facts of this case are entirely different from the present case because here the injury report itself shows that there were fractures at 3 places of the body of the injured and the injured was of 65 years of age. 7. In Sunil Klumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is the attempt to commit culpable homicide, which is punishable under section 308 IPC and for that purpose the entire facts of the case, including the intention or knowledge of the accused are required to be considered. In that case , the Hon'ble apex Court observed that there was a struggle between the parties without any intention. Therefore, the facts of the present case are different from the above referred case. 8. In Alok Kumar's case (supra), this Court in criminal revision petition affirmed the order of the learned trial court, by which the trial court discharged the accused petitioner under section 308 IPC. The learned Single Bench observed that since the injuries are not on the vital part of the body, charge under section 308 IPC, cannot be framed. But the place of the injuries in the above case were tibia fibula and leg and one clavicle bone fracture, whereas in the present case there were fractures at 3 places and the age of the injured was 65 years of age. Therefore, the facts of the present case are different from the case cited above. 9. In Dilawar Balu Kurane's case (supra) the Hon'ble apex court held that while exercising the powers under section 227 Cr.P.C. the Court should not act as a mouth piece of prosecution but weigh the evidence impartially and thoroughly. 10. While applying the above principle, the record appreciated by the learned trial court for framing the charges is concerned I find no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the impugned order dated 22.01.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu. 11. 10. While applying the above principle, the record appreciated by the learned trial court for framing the charges is concerned I find no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the impugned order dated 22.01.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu. 11. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the present petitioners Baja Ram @ Bajrang Lal and Gyana Ram is dismissed and the order of the learned trial court dated 22.01.2009 is maintained.Revision petition dismissed. *******