Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1558 (RAJ)

Leela Devi w/o Kailash Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-11-02

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2016
ORDER : Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 24.05.2016, whereby the learned court below has framed charges under Section 307 IPC against all the petitioners. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that two injuries have been caused to injured Trilok Ram and both the injuries are simple in nature. As per the x-ray report, no bony injury was seen on the skull. The weapon used in the offence was blunt and the injuries were found to be simple in nature after x-ray. It is also contended that the court below has seriously erred in framing charge under Section 307 IPC against each of the petitioner individually. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ramlal & Ors. v. State of Raj., 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 355, wherein the High Court has held that the intention to cause death being not established, charge under Section 307 deserves to be quashed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the injury has been caused on the head. Petitioner No. 2 was carrying a gun, which was recovered from the spot, therefore, the intention to cause death is established and the court below has not erred in framing charge under Section 307 IPC. However, it is conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor that the framing of charge under Section 307 IPC individually against each of the petitioner was erroneous. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the injury report as well as the impugned order. 5. From the injury report, it is clear that two injuries were caused; one on the head and the other on the left knee. Both the injuries have been caused by blunt weapon and the injuries have been found to be simple in nature. No bony injury was seen in the x-ray report. 6. There being no fracture and the injuries being caused by blunt weapon, as also the fact that the injuries have been found to be simple in nature, merely because a gun has been recovered from the spot and that too unloaded, the intention to cause death cannot be inferred. The trial court has clearly erred in framing charge under Section 307 IPC and more particularly against each of the petitioner individually. The trial court has clearly erred in framing charge under Section 307 IPC and more particularly against each of the petitioner individually. There being no material for framing charge under Section 307 IPC, the same deserves to be quashed. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The charge under Section 307 IPC framed against each of the petitioner individually is quashed. The learned court below shall pass appropriate order for transferring the case to the concerned judicial magistrate under Section 228 Cr.P.C. for trial in accordance with law. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.