Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 295 (RAJ)

Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 20.7.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jahajpur, whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 332, 353 of the I.P.C. and in the alternative for the offence under Sections 323, 323/34 I.P.C. in Cr. Original Case No. 47/1988. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that an incident took place at Devali Bundi road in the night intervening 11-12.8.1985, wherein it is alleged that four unidentified persons on motorcycle assaulted one Narayanpuri, who was transporting petrol in a matador vehicle for the purpose of delivering the same for being used in the Helicopter of Chief Minister. The F.I.R. to this effect was lodged by Narayanpuri at the Police Station Dadawadi, Kota and the allegation in the F.I.R. was that the accused demanded some petrol from the complainant and on refusal, manhandled him. 3. Since, the jurisdiction was not available to the Police Station Dadawadi, Kota, the same was sent to Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi, where F.I.R. No. 75/1985 was registered. A Final report was submitted by the said Police Station and the matter was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara. The Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara directed for registration of fresh F.I.R., where F.I.R. No. 98/1986 was registered. 4. During course of the investigation, the Police could not trace the accused, who assaulted Narayanpuri but the Additional Public Prosecutor concerned filed an application in the Court that the petitioner Ram Singh was travelling in the same area at the time of the incident and that he had also filed an F.I.R. about an altercation with a person driving the matador. The Police linked the two incidents and holding the altercation referred to in the report filed by the petitioner Ram Singh and incident, which took place with Narayanpuri to be part of the same transaction, the petitioners were charge-sheeted. 5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the learned trial Judge proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners as stated above. Now the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant revision seeking quashing of the charges framed against them. 6. 5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the learned trial Judge proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners as stated above. Now the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant revision seeking quashing of the charges framed against them. 6. Shri P.N. Mohanani learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. nor were they subjected to any test identification proceedings and therefore, the charges, which have been framed against the petitioner are purely on the basis of conjectures. He, therefore, prays that the order framing charges against the petitioners is absolutely illegal and deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that by reading the petitioner Ram Singh's complaint registered at the Police Station Devli in conjunction with the report filed by the first informant, it is f apparent that the incident in relation whereto, the petitioner Ram Singh filed F.I.R. and the incident referred to in the complaint of Narayanpuri is one of the same. He, therefore, subjects that the learned trial Judge was absolutely justified in utilising the petitioners' F.I.R. and framing charge against the petitioners as stated above. 8. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record. 9. From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that in the F.I.R., which has been filed by Narayanpuri and the investigation carried out thereupon, the identity of the assailants was not revealed. The prosecution has tried to take a clue from the petitioner Ram Singh's F.I.R. for the purpose of linking the two cases but the fact remains that even in the petitioner's F.I.R. the name of the complainant is not mentioned. Therefore, it would not be possible for the Court to conclude that both the incidents in relation whereto, the petitioner Ram Singh filed the F.I.R. and the one referred to Narayanpuri's F.I.R. are one and the same. Thus, the order whereby the charge has beer framed against the petitioners is not based on any substantial evidence available on the record and it is rather purely based on conjectures. Thus, the order whereby the charge has beer framed against the petitioners is not based on any substantial evidence available on the record and it is rather purely based on conjectures. Though, the law in this regard is well settled that a charge can be framed against an accused merely on the basis of a suspicion but if the material as available on the record is considered and evaluated, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be possible to hold that there is any such material on the basis whereof even a grave suspicion can be raised against the petitioners so as to justify the charges. Thus, the order whereby the trial Judge has framed charges against the petitioners as stated above cannot be sustained.The revision thus succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 20.7.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jahajpur is hereby quashed.Revision allowed. *******