Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 836 (RAJ)

Dayanand v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-06

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 1.9.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No. 204/2005, affirming the order dated 26.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 411/2005 framing charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 336, 377, 338 and 379/34 I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a written report at the Police Station, Hanumangarh Town on 4.4.2004 alleging inter alia that in the previous evening, at about 9:00 PM, the complainant along with his brother Dev Kishan was going from Hanumangarh Town to Hanumangarh Junction for attending a "Jaagran It was also stated in the F.I.R..that at about 9:00/9:30 PM, when the complainant and his brother were going on the road, suddenly a Euclyptus tree fell down on the road, they tried to avoid the same by raising hue and cry but could not succeed. The tree fell on them, due to which his brother Dev Kishan received head injury and the first informant also received injuries. It was also stated in the F.I.R. that on an inquiry being made, it was found that the tree had been cut by two persons employed and engaged by the petitioner Dayanand and as a result of their rash and negligent act, the tree was cut down in a reckless manner resulting into injuries being causes to the first informant and his brother. On the basis of the report, an F.I.R. No. 172/2004 for the offences under Sections 336, 337 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was registered and the investigation commenced. The police, after conclusion of the investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and two others for the aforesaid offences and the learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner, as stated above. The petitioners challenged the order framing charges by filing a revision petition, which too has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the charges and the subsequent proceedings pending against him in the trial Court in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the charges and the subsequent proceedings pending against him in the trial Court in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material available on record to show that the petitioners was responsible for cutting of the tree in a rash and negligent fashion so as to justify the framing of the charges, mentioned above against him. He submits that in the F.I.R., the name of no eye-witness has been mentioned who has claimed to have seen the petitioner having the tree cut. He contends that even during the subsequent investigation, as improvement has been made by the prosecution and it has been projected that when the tree fell down on the complainant and his brother, at that time one Indica car was standing nearby and on seeing the tree falling down, the occupants of the Indica car, who were none else then petitioner Dayanand and his brother Murli Manohar, ran away from the scene of the occurrence. It is submitted that even if the said story is to be accepted then also it cannot be inferred that merely because of petitioner's presence at the scene of occurrence, it could be assumed that the tree was cut at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order framing charges against the petitioner is absolutely unjustified and the same deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in this case the learned trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner and the order framing charges has been affirmed by the Revisional Court. He further submits that witness Ram Singh has stated in the investigation that the petitioners approached him for providing labourers for cutting the tree near his plot and that he suggested the names of Bagga Singh and Jagga Singh to the petitioner for the purpose of cutting the tree. He further submits that witness Ram Singh has stated in the investigation that the petitioners approached him for providing labourers for cutting the tree near his plot and that he suggested the names of Bagga Singh and Jagga Singh to the petitioner for the purpose of cutting the tree. On the basis of the said statement of Ram Singh, it is argued that since the petitioner was the person responsible for engaging these two labourers as per the statement of Ram Singh, it can very well be assumed that the tree was cut at the instance and on the directions of the petitioner and, therefore, no interference is called for in the order framing charges against the petitioner because it is the rash and negligent act of the labourers engaged by the petitioner which resulted into the fall of the tree on the complainant and his brother. 5. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after having gone through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no direct evidence available on the record, by which it can be inferred that the tree, which allegedly fell down on the complainant and his brother, was, as a matter of fact, cut down at the instance of the petitioner. In the F.I.R. there is no allegation that anybody had seen the petitioner having the tree cut. It is the complainant's assumption from an inquiry being made by himself that the petitioner was the person responsible for cutting of the tree. 6. Subsequently, and improvement has been made in the story and it has been projected that after the tree had fallen down on the complainant and his brother, the petitioner and his companions, who were standing nearby in Indica car, escaped from the scene of the occurrence. Firstly, this story is nothing but an improvement which never existed in the earlier version of the complainant and secondly, even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that the petitioner was seen standing on the road when the tree was being cut, by that very fact no assumption can be drawn that the tree was being cut at the instance of the petitioner. 7. 7. The statement of Ram Singh is also of no help to the prosecution because all that Ram Singh has stated is that the petitioner approached him for engaging few labourers for cutting a tree two to three days prior to the incident. The witness is not the person who had seen the tree being cut down. Further more, from the statement of this witness, it cannot be concluded as to whether the petitioner contacted the witness to engage the labourers for cutting the very tree which is the bone of contention in the instant case. The charge under Section 379/34 I.P.C. also cannot be sustained as there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner committed the theft of the tree. 8. Resultantly, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no valid and legal evidence on the record of the case for prosecuting the petitioner regarding the offences, for which the charges have been framed against him. 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the miscellaneous petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 26.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 411/2005 framing charges against the petitioner, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 1.9.2005 passed in Criminal Revision No. 204/2005, are hereby quashed and set aside. The stay petition stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******