Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2052 (RAJ)

Dunga Ram Balai v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-20

NISHA GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 30.3.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Cr. Case No. 215/2004 whereby application of the petitioner for amendment of charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C., has been rejected. 2. The petitioner is facing trial in Cr. Case No. 215/2004 and he was charged for the offence under Section 279, 337, 427 and 429 IPC. The petitioner filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C., stating therein that offence under Section 427 and 429 IPC could not be framed as charges under Section 279 and 337 IPC have been framed. 3. The only contention of the present petitioner is that evidence recorded during the investigation speaks that it was a case of accident and for which charges under Section 279 and 337 IPC has been framed. For the offence under Section 427 and 429 IPC, the essential ingredients is intention which is missing by the bare perusal of the prosecution evidence, hence charges under Section 427 and 429 IPC be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor has left the matter at the discretion of the court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order as well as the photo copies of the charge-sheet presented by the petitioner. 5. The complainant and other witnesses has stated that vehicle RJ-06 G 2921 has been driven rashly and negligently and on a high speed by the petitioner and hit on the camel cart of the complainant and Shedu Ram and others. The vehicle has also collided with camel cart of Sher Singh and Sher Sing and Shedu Ram both have suffered injuries. Sher Singh and other witnesses has also stated manner of the incident in the same manner. 6. The contention of the present petitioner seems to be sound that prosecution has come with a case of negligent driving, hence charges for the offence under Section 279 and 337 IPC could be framed but at the same time, charges under Section 427 and 429 are not made out as they are contrary to the charges under Section 279 and 337 IPC. Section 279 and 337 IPC presupposes negligent act on the part of accused whereas the essential ingredients of Section 427 and 429 IPC is intention and both cannot go hand in hand, they are contrary to each other.Hence in view of the above, the petition is allowed. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is discharged from the offence under Section 427 and 429 IPC.Petition allowed. *******