Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 76 (RAJ)

Poona Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2013-01-11

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision has been filed by the petitioner complainant challenging the order dated 9.11.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Sessions Case No. 18/2009 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discharged the respondents from the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial court has discharged the respondents from the said charge only on the ground that the police did not file a charge sheet against Bhanwarlal s/o Bhakar Ram who is alleged to have caused the injury. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because of the fact that the I.O. has not chosen to charge sheet a particular accused that by itself cannot be a ground to discharge other accused from the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. as the necessary ingredients of the offence are made out against the accused. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner complainant has already requested the learned trial court to summon the said Bhanwarlal as additional accused. He contends that the injury caused on the head of Poona Ram has been found to be a life endangering injury caused by a sharp weapon, and therefore, there was no justification on record for discharging the respondents from the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Learned counsel submits that not only the complainant injured Poona Ram but the lady Somai was also assaulted indiscriminately by the accused and was caused a large number of injuries including any injury on the head and thus, it is apparent that the intention of the accused was to commit the murder. He, therefore, prays that the order impugned be quashed and now a direction be issued for framing charge against the respondent for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Upon hearing the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the order impugned and the record, it is apparent that there is no dispute that injury no. 2 which has been caused to Poona Ram is an injury by sharp edged weapon that has been caused on his head and has been found to be a life endangering injury as per the opinion of the Medical Jurist. 2 which has been caused to Poona Ram is an injury by sharp edged weapon that has been caused on his head and has been found to be a life endangering injury as per the opinion of the Medical Jurist. Somari has also been caused a large number of injuries including an injury on her skull. The head injury of Poona Ram has been found to be grievous on the X-Ray. Therefore, there does not exist any justification from the record by which the trial court was justified in discharging the respondents from the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. 5. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order dated 9.11.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Phalodi is hereby quashed. The A.C.J.M. Phalodi will commit the respondents to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Phalodi where charges shall be framed against the respondents as directed above and then shall try the case in accordance with law. The record be sent back forthwith. The stay application stands disposed of.Revision allowed. *******