Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2170 (RAJ)

Khangar v. State of Rajashtan

2012-11-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners challenging the order dated 18.08.1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 48/1992 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the petitioners and the deceased were admittedly consuming liquor together and thereafter, the deceased expired. On the basis of the first postmortem report, the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated and, as per the postmortem report some bruises were found on the body of the deceased, but they were not responsible for the death of the deceased Pancha Ram. He submits that after the first postmortem, the father of the deceased raised suspicion about the death of his son on the basis of which it was directed that second post mortem should be done but again, it was found that the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused of his death. 3. It is further submitted that on the viscera of the deceased on being sent for chemical examination the presence of liquor has been found from the viscera and the Doctor has given specific opinion that the cause of the death of the deceased is probably of excessive consumption -of liquor. Thus it is prayed that the charge framed against the petitioner under Section 302 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and submits that the presence of the accused with the deceased just before the death and the presence of number of injuries on the body of the deceased are circumstances, by virtue of which the charge very well be framed against the petitioner. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the material available on record and, in the opinion of this Court, it appears that the trial Court has not applied its mind properly to the facts and circumstances before framing charge against the petitioner. Definitely, from the medical evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the injuries on the person of the deceased were responsible for his death. Rather it is disclosed from the record i.e. the post mortem report and the report of the F.S.L. available on record that the deceased expired as a result of excessive consumption of liquor. 6. Definitely, from the medical evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the injuries on the person of the deceased were responsible for his death. Rather it is disclosed from the record i.e. the post mortem report and the report of the F.S.L. available on record that the deceased expired as a result of excessive consumption of liquor. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds. The order dated 18.08.1994 on the basis of which charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. has been framed against the petitioner is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial Judge, to pass a fresh order by considering the complete facts of the case.Record of the case to be sent back.Revision petition allowed. *******