Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1670 (RAJ)

Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-20

ATUL KUMAR JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - At the stage of admission, final arguments merits have been heard by this Court by consent of both the parties. 2. In these criminal revision petitions, there are two sets of accused-persons. In S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 548/2013 accused-persons (1) Devi Lal, (2) Mahendra Kumar, and (3) Ashok Kumar have challenged the charge framed against them by the trial Court and in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 609/2013 another set of four accused-persons (1) Shambhu Puri, (2) Suresh Puri, (3) Mahesh Puri, and (4) Girraj Singh have challenged the charges framed against them by the trial Court. Both criminal revision petitions have been filed against (he same order dated 22.6.2012 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 15/2013 titled as State v. Mahendra Kumar & Ors. , so both the criminal revision petitions are being decided by this common order. 3. The trial Court had framed charge under Section 308 I.P.C., in both the cross-cases. It has been told (o this Court that in the cross-case where the charge framed under Section 308 I.P.C., charge order has not been challenged by the accused-persons in the High Court. In the present case all the seven accused-persons want that they have been charged under Sections 308, 148, 325, 341, 323 and 427 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and the only relief they want is that they should be discharged from the charge of Section 308 I.P.C. The revision petitioners have not pressed their petitions against other charges in these criminal revision petitions, so we have to decide here only one point that whether a case under Section 308 I.P.C., is made out against all the seven accused-persons or not. In this regard, I have gone through the impugned order. I have also perused the copies of the record submitted by the accused-persons. It has been mentioned in the order of the trial Court that all the accused-persons were equipped.with deadly weapons like latths and iron rods and they were knowing that by injuries caused by these weapons, the victim could have died so in the opinion of the trial Court irrespective of the injuries, a case under Section 308 I.P.C., was made out against all the accused persons. It is pertinent to mention here that in a case under Section 307 I.P.C. or Section 308 I.P.C., injuries which have been caused are not material but the intention with which injuries have been caused is material. 4. Following rulings may be referred here: (1) Prakash & Ors. v. State, (2003) 2 R.Cr.D. (Raj.) 444 In this case, it was held that in a case under Section 307 I.P.C., it is not essential that deadly injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted and to say that injuries are simple in nature, cannot be a ground to interfere at the stage of framing charge and it cannot be inferred that the accused had no intention to commit the murder and these are the questions to be decided during the trial. (2) Sehdeo v. State of Rajasthan, 2003(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 408 In this case also all the witnesses had stated that accused-persons had inflicted injuries with deadly weapons with intention to commit murder and in such case it was held that irrespective of the injuries, the Sessions Judge should have framed the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. 5. In the following rulings it was held that unless the order of the trial Court has caused undue prejudice to one party, it should not be interfered by the Revisional Court: (1) Kaptan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 2485 (2) State of Orrisa v. Nakul Sahoo, AIR 1989 SC 663 (3) Pathamma v. Mohhaed, AIR 1986 SC 1436 6. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 22.6.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 15/2013 does not appear to be arbitrary or perverse or causing unnecessary prejudice to any party or against the facts or against law. Hence, the impugned order deserves no interference in these revision petitions. So both the criminal revision petitions are hereby dismissed. The stay petitions also stand dismissal accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court immediately by speed post.Revision dismissed. *******