Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 837 (RAJ)

Gokul Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2015-04-13

M.N.BHANDARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By these criminal misc. petitions, challenge is made to the orders dated 25.10.2013, by which, revision petitions preferred by the non-petitioners were allowed and the orders dated 29.9.2010, passed by the trial court, allowing the applications under section 319 Cr.P.C., were reversed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that on FIR, investigation was made followed by charge sheet against only two accused leaving others. The court framed charges and thereupon evidence was led. In the evidence, role of other accused also came, thus application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed. The applications aforesaid was allowed by the trial court, however, the order was reversed by the revisional court. It is in ignorance of the legal provisions as, at the stage of considering application under section 319 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary that evidence should of the nature, it remains unrebutted, may lead to conviction. Reference of the judgment in the case of "Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & ors", [ (2014) 3 SCC 92 ] has been given. Therein, the issue aforesaid was answered by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The order of the revisional court may be quashed by maintaining order of the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for non-petitioners submit that while lodging the FIR, allegations against the accused party was for use of sharp-edged weapon, apart from ‘lathis’. All the injuries sustained by the injured are by the blunt object. In the statements under section 161 Cr.PC, allegations made in the FIR were reiterated. The police filed charge sheet against two persons. After framing of charges, evidence was led by the prosecution. Therein, names of other accused were also given for causing the offence. An application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed at that stage. It was allowed by the court below, however, the order of the trial court was set aside by the revisional court. It was mainly for the reason that as against 9 injuries, petitioners implicated of 13-14 persons. The allegation is for use of sharp-edged weapon by Matadeen and others, whereas, no injury has been received by sharp-edged weapon. It is also for the reason after the FIR and statements under section 161 Cr.P.C., improvement was made in the court statement for use of ‘barchhi’ from blunt side. The allegation is for use of sharp-edged weapon by Matadeen and others, whereas, no injury has been received by sharp-edged weapon. It is also for the reason after the FIR and statements under section 161 Cr.P.C., improvement was made in the court statement for use of ‘barchhi’ from blunt side. The court found all those to be relevant to determine where application under section 319 Cr.P.C. is bona fide or not. Finding that no evidence exist for taking cognizance against others, revision petition was rightly allowed by the court. Thus, petitions may be dismissed. 4. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not disputed that while lodging the FIR, names of many accused were given showing use of sword, barchhi and lathis by them. The weapons were not specifically assigned to each accused. In the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., witnesses maintained their statements as were given in the FIR. In the court statement, there was some improvement as ‘barchhi’ was said to have been used from blunt side. The revisional court found that against Matadeen allegation is for use of ‘sword’ though no injury from sharp-edged weapon exist. It was also found that as against 9 injuries, 13-14 persons have been implicated. Taking the aforesaid to be material and in reference to the evidence during trial, application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was found to be without basis. For taking cognizance of offence or framing of charges, prima facie case needs to be found against the accused. At the stage of application under section 319 Cr.P.C., it should be of a greater nature than the prima facie case seen at the time of framing of charges, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra). 6. In view of the judgment aforesaid, there has to be difference in the standard of evidence while framing the charges and while considering the application under section 319 Cr.P.C.. If the facts of this case are considered, it is not only that there is improvement in the statements but injury report does not support the version taken by the petitioners. It is not that cognizance of offence can be taken on an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. against the accused even if the statements are not corroborated by medical evidence or other evidence. It is not that cognizance of offence can be taken on an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. against the accused even if the statements are not corroborated by medical evidence or other evidence. What was stated in the FIR regarding use of weapon has been improved while recording court statements. Taking into consideration all these facts, revisional court allowed the revision petitions. An application under section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted despite contradiction in the evidence for whom application has been filed. The prima facie case should be of the nature greater than what is required at the time of framing of the charges. The revisional court made minute scrutiny of the aforesaid while passing the impugned orders. 7. In view of aforesaid, I do not find any error or illegality so as to make interference while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. The criminal misc. petitions are dismissed accordingly.