Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2046 (RAJ)

Jani Devi v. Harish Kumar

2012-10-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 8.5.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 22/2012 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 307/34, 323 and 341 I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the F.I.R. was registered in this case on the basis of the written report filed by Ramesh Das brother of Kishore Das. The allegations as stated in the F.I.R. are that Kishore Das had gotten up in the night to attend the call of nature and at that time seeing him alone Puran Singh, Prem Singh, Indu and Jani Devi gave him lathi blows on the head due to which Kishore Das received head injury. On hearing hue and cry of the injured, the persons who had collected in a Jagaran going on nearby came there and saved him. On the basis of the report, an F.I.R. No. 40/2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 307, 341 and 323/34 I.P.C. During the course of investigation statement of Kishore Das was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he corroborated the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Upon being medically examined, one lacerated wound was found on his head. X-ray opinion was sought by the I.O. The Medical Jurist vide letter dated 6.3.2012 opined that the injury on the head of Kishore Das was simple in nature. As per the said opinion the injured remained hospitalized between 6.2.2012 to 11.2.2012. The police filed charge-sheet in the matter for the offence tinder Sections 307, 323/34, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Pali and the learned Sessions judge directed framing of charges against the petitioners for the offence as stated. Now the instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order framing charges. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that from the admitted facts of the prosecution it is apparent that no prima facie case under iau Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. He submits that three persons said to have inflicted injuries to the injured but only one injury was alleged to have been caused on the head which was found to be simple and the injured was not even subjected to X-ray examination. He submits that three persons said to have inflicted injuries to the injured but only one injury was alleged to have been caused on the head which was found to be simple and the injured was not even subjected to X-ray examination. He, therefore, prays that the order framing charge against petitioner Puran Singh under Section 307 I.P.C. and three others under Section 307/34 I.P.C. cannot be said to be justified by any stretch of imagination. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant have vehemently apposed the submissions and urged that as the injury was aimed on the head of injured, the revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant and after going through the order impugned particularly the statement of Kishore Das, his medical report and the opinion of the Medical jurist, it is apparent that the injury on the head of the injured was a superficial injury. Though the injured is said to have been admitted in the hospital but the injury as mentioned in the report dated 6.3.2012 has been found to be simple in nature. Upon specific opinion being sought from the Medical Jurist, the Medical Jurist has stated that the injury was simple in nature. In the letter dated 17.2.2012 issued by the Medical Officer of the M.D.M. Hospital, Jodhpur, the condition of the patient has been observed as conscious and oriented about time and fit for giving statement. Therefore, it is apparent that the injury which was caused to the injured did not endanger or cause any risk to his life. The injury caused to the injured is a solitary injury and there was no repetition of blows. 6. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Sessions framing against Puran Singh for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and against the three others for the offence under Section 307/34 cannot be sustained. 7. The revision petition is allowed. The order dated 8.5.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali is modified and whilst retaining the charges under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. the matter is directed to be toned down and then transmitted to the C.J.M., Pali for trial.Revision allowed. *******