Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2041 (RAJ)

Sant Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2012-10-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 15.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh HQ Nohar in Sessions Case No.4/09 (2/09), whereby charged have been framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 354 and 307/34 IPC. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the accused are alleged to have given injuries by fist and kicks to the injured. He submits that no weapons were used, therefore, ex-facie the charge under Section 307 IPC is wrongly framed against the accused. He further submits that in the FIR and in the statements of the injured himself, there is no mention about the accused having assaulted the injured with the intention to cause him death. He, therefore, prays that the revision deserves to be accepted and the order passed by the trial Court directing framing of charge under Section 307 IPC against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submit that the injured Khyali Khan right on the date of his admission i.e. on 11.8.2008 was found to be having respiratory distress as a result of injury on his thoracic region. Upon an X-Ray being conducted on 12.8.2012 fracture of two ribs, resultant rupture of left lung was found and underlying gas was also seen, which was suggestive of surgical emphysema due to the injuries resulting into respiratory distress. They, therefore, submit that the injuries on the very day of the incident was opined to be dangerous to life and as such, considering the location of the injury and the manner in which assault has taken place, it can be assumed that the accused intended to commit murder of the injured. They, therefore, pray that no interference is called for in the order passed by the trial Court directing framing of the charges against the accused. 4. They, therefore, pray that no interference is called for in the order passed by the trial Court directing framing of the charges against the accused. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly looking to manner in which the assault has been made on the injured and the seat of the injuries, which have been caused to the injured resulting into fracture of two ribs and consequently the rupture of the lungs and respiratory distress, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage minute examination of the different medical opinions available on record is not required but prima-facie, the initial report of the medical officer, who examined the injured is available as per which the injured was having a swelling on his chest region and the X-Ray of the chest disclosed that there were fracture of two ribs of the injured and the same has resulted into the rupture of the lung, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has committed no error in framing charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused. 5. The revision thus being bereft of any force, is hereby rejected. 6. Stay petition is also rejected. The trial Court shall expedite the trial of the case.Revision petition rejected. *******