Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 949 (RAJ)

Kumari Nanu v. State of Rajasthan

2013-05-09

ATUL KUMAR JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been filed by injured/complainants Kumari Nanu and Kumari Bhadar against the order dated 18.2.2009 which was passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh District Churu in Sessions Case No. 5/2008-State v. Banshidhar etc. by which he has transferred the matter unde Section 228, Cr.P.C. for trial to the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh by discharging accused-persons from the charge of Section 308 IPC and for trial of remaining charges. The case has been registered in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh as Criminal Regular Case No. 199/2008. 2. I have heard arguments of both the parties. The petitioners have urged that injury report of Kumari Nanu depicts twenty injuries on her body out of which one injury on her right shoulder was found to be grievous while injury report of deceased Kumari Bhadar depicts seventeen injuries on her body, out of which two injuries, one on left little finger and another on left tiny finger were found to be grievous. All other injuries of both the injured persons are simple and blunt caused by blunt weapons and grievous injuries have also been said to be caused by blunt weapon. No injury is on the vital part of body and no fatal injury has been alleged to have been caused on any one of the injured. In these circumstances, Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu by his order dated 18.2.2009 has discharged all the seven accused-persons from the charge of Section 308 IPC and the case was transferred by him for trial for the charges under Sections 325, 323, 143 and 447 IPC to the concerned Magistrate. 3. The petitioners want that the impugned order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh should be set aside and the case be ordered to be tried by himself on the charge of Section 308 IPC as well. 4. Respondents nos. 2 to 8 have opposed the prayer of the petitioners and they have stated that no case under Section 308 IPC was made out prima facie and so the impugned order is perverse. 5. I have perused the record of the lower court and I have particularly gone through the statements of the injured Kumari Nanu and Kumari Bhadar also. I have also perused the following ruling cited at the Bar:Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and anr, 2013 R.Cr.D. 85 (SC) . 6. 5. I have perused the record of the lower court and I have particularly gone through the statements of the injured Kumari Nanu and Kumari Bhadar also. I have also perused the following ruling cited at the Bar:Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and anr, 2013 R.Cr.D. 85 (SC) . 6. Section 308, IPC reads as follows:- "308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." 7. In this case, neither the required intention nor the required knowledge is prima facie on record against any of the accused-persons and so the learned lower court has rightly discharged all the accused-persons from the charge under Section 308 IPC and so, it cannot be said that the impugned order is arbitrary or perverse or against the facts or against law. 8. In the following ruling, it has been held that ordinarily the revision court should not interfere in the judgments or orders passed by the lower court unless there is glaring illegality or it appears from the record that order passed by the lower court, if allowed, to subsist, will defeat the ends of justice or it is without jurisdiction. Amar Chand v. Shanti Bose, AIR 1973 SC 799 , Kaptan Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC 2485 , Pathumma and Anr. v. Muhammad, AIR 1986 SC 1936 , State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu, 1979 AIR (SC) 663 and Girija Nandnidevi Choudhary v. Vijendra Narayan Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 . 9. In the light of law propounded in the above rulings, I do not think it fit to interfere in the order passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 5/2008 and hence this revision deserves dismissal which is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the courts below.Revision dismissed. *******