Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 320 (RAJ)

Kailash Manju v. State of Rajasthan

2015-02-04

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant revision petition, the petitioner seeks to assail legality and validity of the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.66/2012 whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 307-149, 332-149, 225, 225 (iii)-149 and Section 120B IPC. 2. The case involves a serious allegation of facilitating the escape of under trial accused Vishna Ram and Kailash Jakhar from judicial custody after gun fires being made in the court premises. The FIR of the incident came to be registered by the Challani Guard Tulsa Ram at Police Station, Udai Mandir, Jodhpur on 14.06.2012 with the allegation that he alongwith the other members of the Challani Guard Party brought the under trial accused Vishna Ram and Kailash Jakhar to the court premises for attending the date of hearing from Central Jail, Jodhpur. The accused were presented on 14.06.2012 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District. After the break and pursuant to the court hearing being concluded, when the Challani Guard came out of the court premises with the above named under trials, 15-20 hoodlums assaulted them by sharp edged weapons, country made shotguns and pistols. Three persons namely Kailash Vishnoi, Om Prakash and Ashok Vishnoi were specifically named in the FIR. It was alleged that accused attempted to snatch weapons of the Challani Guard in the attempt to stage the escape of Vishna Ram and Kailash Jakhar. Cross firing took place between the parties and ultimately the accused managed to escape with Kailash Jakhar and took him away in a black colored Scorpio bearing registration number GJ 7777. One Pickup vehicle belonging to the accused was left behind at the scene of occurrence. 3. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.207/2012 was registered at Police Station, Udai Mandir, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 224, 225 and 120B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. One Pickup vehicle belonging to the accused was left behind at the scene of occurrence. 3. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.207/2012 was registered at Police Station, Udai Mandir, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 224, 225 and 120B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. After initial investigation, the police filed an incomplete charge-sheet against 21 accused while investigation was kept pending for numerous other accused including one Kailash s/o Ramchandra Vishnoi under Section 173(8)Cr.P.C. During further investigation, the police arrested the present petitioner for his alleged role in the incident by supplying the weapons which had been used by the principal accused in the staging the escape of Vishna Ram and Kailash Jakhar. 4. Three informations under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were recorded by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the petitioner to the effect that he could get recovered the carbines which he had supplied to the accused who were involved in the main incident. However, it is not disputed that no recovery whatsoever was effected in pursuance of such information. Upon conclusion of the further investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Om Prakash son of Chaina Ram, the petitioner herein, Pradeep son of Sahi Ram Bhuwal as well as one Mangilal. The learned trial Judge by the order dated 11.10.2013 proceeded to frame charges against the accused petitioner as stated above and hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence whatsoever on the record of the case to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. He submits that in whole charge sheet and the entire material available on record, there is no such fact, by which, the petitioner can be linked with the alleged crime. He contends that the case of the prosecution as against the petitioner is limited to the extent that he supplied the carbines which were used by the principal accused in committing the offence. However, he urges that no recovery whatsoever was effected from the petitioner. Mere information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act unsupported by any recovery or discovery of incriminating material cannot be used as a piece of evidence so as to frame charges against the accused. However, he urges that no recovery whatsoever was effected from the petitioner. Mere information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act unsupported by any recovery or discovery of incriminating material cannot be used as a piece of evidence so as to frame charges against the accused. Learned counsel further submits that prosecution has also attempted to implicate the petitioner on the strength of certain call details but neither any mobile instrument was recovered from the petitioner nor any SIM number owned by the petitioner was taken on record by the Investigating Agency so as to link the petitioner with the call details. He, thus, contends that the trial Judge committed grave error in framing charge against the petitioner as there is no material whatsoever on record of the case to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime even for justifying the order framing charge. 6. On the previous date of hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to keep the Investigating Officer present in the Court for providing assistance and for pointing the relevance of the call details taken on record by the Investigating Officer during investigation qua the petitioner. Today, the Investigating Officer, Mr.Sumer Singh, SI, SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Jodhpur is present in the Court. On being asked, the Investigating Officer candidly conceded and stated that no recovery or discovery of any incriminating fact whatsoever was effected in pursuance of the informations recorded at the petitioners instance under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was further admitted that no mobile number could be traced to the petitioner during investigation. He also admitted that no witness came forward during investigation so as to establish that any of the mobile numbers referred to in the call details filed alongwith charge-sheet could be linked to the petitioner. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor attempted to support the order framing charge on the strength of the informations supplied by the petitioner to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, he too is not in a position to dispute that neither any recovery was effected nor any incriminating fact discovered in pursuance of the informations given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 8. In this view of the matter, it is evident that the charge-sheet which was filed against the petitioner was without any basis whatsoever. 8. In this view of the matter, it is evident that the charge-sheet which was filed against the petitioner was without any basis whatsoever. It is true that while considering the question of charge in a sessions trial, even grave suspicion can be sufficient to proceed against the accused and the trial Court need not give detailed reasons for framing the charges. However, it is equally true that there has to be plausible material on the basis of which the court can record a satisfaction that there are grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offence for which he should be charged and put to trial. 9. From the facts and circumstances noted above, it is evident that there was no material whatsoever on record so as to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. As admitted by the Investigating Officer and as is revealed from a minute perusal of the record of the case, the informations recorded at the petitioners instance under Section 27 of the Evidence Act did not result into recovery or discovery of any incriminating material or fact. Further more, the call details which were taken on record by the Investigating Officer could not be linked to the present petitioner. No other material is noticed in the whole of the charge-sheet against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, this Court is of opinion that impugned order framing charge against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 307-149, 332-149, 225, 225 (iii)-149 and Section 120B IPC has no basis whatsoever and cannot be sustained. 10. Consequently, the revision petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 11.10.2013 is quashed qua the petitioner. However, the trial of the remaining accused shall continue. Record be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith.Petition Allowed. *******