Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 818 (RAJ)

Abdul Karim v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-27

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been preferred to assail the order dated 20.04.2011 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh, Camp Gharsana whereby petitioner has been charged for offence under Section 307 and 427 IPC. 2. Briefly stated on 02.11.2010 at about 3.00 p.m. one Ram Lal S/o Chetram lodged a report at Police Station Gharsana wherein he stated that a day before lodging of FIR he along with Dulle Khan S/o Gome Khan on motorcycle had gone to village 28 AS Pawar Wali Dhani . He was returning along with Dulle Khan on motorcycle then present petitioner came there on his tractor. Reaching near the motorcycle, it is alleged that petitioner had given a exhortation that he will liquidate the complainant, saying so accused had pressed the accelerator of the motorcycle and thereafter had hit the motorcycle. Complainant stated that he jumped from the motorcycle and saved himself. 3. Admittedly, it is a case of no injury but of damage to the motorcycle. 4. The above said FIR was investigated; a report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was submitted. On basis thereof Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh, Camp Gharsana had formulated the following two charges. (a) That on 1.11.2010 at about 9.00 p.m. near the Dhani of Dulle Khan, Ram Lal and Dulle Khan were sitting on a motorcycle when, with an attention to kill petitioner had hit the motorcycle with tractor and by jumping, Ram Lal saved himself otherwise he would have been murdered, in the ordinary course, thus, petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. (b) The second charge stated that the petitioner by causing damage to the motorcycle had committed an offence under Section 427 IPC. 5. Mr. S.K. Verma, counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that intention of the accused is to be gathered from the attending circumstances. Counsel has assailed the charge under Section 307 by submitting that it is not only a case of no injury but of damage to the motorcycle and thus provisions of offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be invoked as there is rivalry due to Panchayat election between the complainant and the accused therefore, complainant had exaggerated the alleged incident to aggravate the offence . 6. 6. Shri, N.L. Joshi appearing for the respondent has submitted that causing of injury is not prerequisite to attract offence under Section 307 IPC and it is only intention of the accused, which is to be taken into consideration and for that statement of the witnesses are sufficient. It is further contended that the mere fact the complainant saved himself by jumping from a motorcycle will not absolve the petitioner of offence under Section 307 IPC. Counsel for the respondent-complainant has further submitted that exhortation given by the accused cannot be ignored, as accused specifically stated that he will kill the complainant. 7. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions advanced by counsel for the parties. The exhortation extended by the petitioner that he will liquidate the complainant shall attract offence under Section 506 IPC. So far the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, it is true that sufferance of injuries is not necessary for invoking Section 307 IPC. Whether the petitioner intended to cause murderous assault or not is to be gathered from attending circumstances. The entire version of the complainant is improbable, to fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC. The motorcycle was static, hitting the motorcycle with a tractor and permitting complainant to escape without a scratch cannot be ignored, especially when there are allegations that petitioner has been implicated for malafide reasons. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that trial of the petitioner for offence under Section 307 IPC is misuse and abuse of the process of law. Consequently, charge under Section 307 IPC is quashed. However, it is held that petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for offence under Section 506 and 427 IPC. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh Camp, Gharsana is directed to formulate fresh charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 506 and 427 IPC and thereafter, send the case for trial to the court of competent Magistrate. In view of the above, the revision petition is disposed of.Revision allowed. *******