Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 562 (RAJ)

Nanu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2013-03-13

V.K.MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Nanu Ram has preferred instant revision petition against the order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby the learned Trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner Nanu Ram and other accused persons under Sections 147, 365, 367, 323, 379 and 308/149 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.04.2012, a Parcha Bayan of injured Raju was recorded at S.K. Soni Hospital, Jaipur, wherein he stated that on 10.04.2012, as per the request of Kailash, he alongwith Kailash went to his house in Scorpio vehicle and reached there at about 10-11 PM. Thereafter, Kailash left him at his house and went for some work. After 15-20 minutes, 3-4 vehicles came at the house of Kailash. Suresh and 5 to 7 persons, whose names were not known to him, caught hold of Raju(Complainant) and took him in the dicky of Scorpio vehicle in order to kill him. They dropped him from the vehicle and started beating him by iron pipes and broke his both legs. They also tried to hit on his head by iron pipes, but he, somehow saved himself by holding his hands on the head. Thereafter, they took away Raju's purse, which contained Rs. 3,000/- and his identity card and threw him in front of the house of Kailash. This incident was seen by Sanjeev and Dharmveer, but due to fear, they ran away from the scene of occurrence. 3. On the basis of aforesaid Parcha Bayan, FIR No. 75/2012 was registered at Police Station Kaladera, Jaipur Rural under Sections 143, 365, 367, 323, 307, 379 IPC. After thorough investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the present petitioner and five other accused-persons. After going through the evidence contained in the charge sheet, learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.09.2012 framed the charges against the petitioner and other accused under Sections 147, 365, 367, 323, 379 and 308/149 IPC. Hence, being aggrieved with the same, present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no evidence in the charge sheet for framing the charges against the petitioner under Sections 147, 365, 367, 323, 379, 308/149 IPC. Hence, being aggrieved with the same, present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no evidence in the charge sheet for framing the charges against the petitioner under Sections 147, 365, 367, 323, 379, 308/149 IPC. The learned Trial Court has discharged all the accused persons under Section 307 IPC. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, Nanu Ram has not been named in the FIR; his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded and no overt act has been assigned to the petitioner and as such, there is no evidence to link the petitioner with any offence. The learned counsel prayed that the petitioner, Nanu Ram be discharged of the above-mentioned charges framed by the learned Trial Court. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that there is prima facie evidence on record against the petitioner. The eye-witnesses to the incident, namely Sanjeev and Dharmveer in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have specifically mentioned the name of the petitioner, Nanu Ram, who along with other accused persons had abducted Raju from the house of Kailash and as result of beating given by them with iron pipes, Raju(complainant) sustained grievous injury on his left leg and injuries on other parts of the body. Also as per the statement of the complainant Raju, Suresh and 5 to 7 persons, whose names were not known to him, had abducted him from the house of Kailash, beaten him with iron pipes and he has further reiterated the statements of the eye witnesses. Hence, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Trial Court was absolutely justified in framing the charges for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. 6. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles which should govern the framing of charge by the learned Trial Court. 6. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles which should govern the framing of charge by the learned Trial Court. It would be beneficial to reproduce the same:- On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the following principles emerge:- (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 7. From the perusal of the Parcha Bayan of injured Raju it is clear that Suresh and 5 to 7 persons, whose names were not known to him, had abducted him from the house of Kailash, took him in the dicky of Scorpio vehicle in order to kill him and thereafter, the accused-persons gave beating to Raju with iron pipes. The accused persons tried to hit Raju on his head, but Raju somehow saved himself. In his statement, Raju has categorically stated that Sanjeev and Dharmveer were present at the scene of occurrence. The witnesses Sanjeev and Dharmveer, in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., have reiterated the story of the injured Raju and specifically stated that the petitioner Nanu Ram along with other accused persons had abducted Raju from the house of Kailash and taken him in the dicky of Scorpio vehicle and thereafter had given beating to Raju with iron pipes. 8. As per the injury report of the complainant Raju, there were four injuries on his body and X-Ray report of the complainant Raju shows a fracture of shaft of left leg, which was opined to be grievous in nature. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, Nanu Ram under Sections 147, 365, 367, 323, 379 and 308/149 IPC. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 27.09.2012 passed by learned Trial Court. 9. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 27.09.2012 passed by learned Trial Court. 9. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is, hereby, dismissed. 10. Stay application also stands dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******