Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 208 (RAJ)

Baljeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-04

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. By way of the instant revision petition, the accused petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 1.11.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 6/2011 whereby, the learned trial Court accepted the application filed by the prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C. and directed framing of additional charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and in the alternative Section 302/149 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the incident in question took place on 28.9.2010. The prosecution set up a case that the accused indiscriminately assaulted the complainant party and caused a head injury to one Dhan Singh. Dhan Singh was examined medically and as per the medical documents available on record, till the date of filing of the charge-sheet, he was opined to be having simple injury on the head as the X-ray examination did not disclose any bony injury. The investigating agency filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 307 and in the alternative, 307/149, 326, 326/149, 325, 325/149, 324, 324/149, 323 and 323/149 IPC. The trial Court framed charges against the accused for these offences. When the medical witnesses PW1 Dr. Naresh Saklecha and PW4 Dr. Naresh Garg were examined at the trial, the prosecution got proved the CT scan report of Dhan Singh as per which, he was found having a depressed fracture on his parietal region. Dhan Singh allegedly passed away on 13.12.2011. Taking cue from the CT Scan report and the subsequent death of Dhan Singh by the alleged after effect of the head injury caused in the same incident, the prosecution filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. requesting the trial Court to add the charge under Section 302, 302/149 IPC against the accused petitioners. The said application was allowed by order dated 1.11.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that till date, only 4 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and none of them have stated that Dhan Singh has passed away. Admittedly, the body of the deceased was not subjected to post mortem. The said application was allowed by order dated 1.11.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that till date, only 4 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and none of them have stated that Dhan Singh has passed away. Admittedly, the body of the deceased was not subjected to post mortem. The trial Court, in an absolutely conjectural fashion proceeded to alter the charge and framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and in the alternative under Section 302/149 IPC. He contends that the supplementary report acquired by the prosecution from the investigating officer regarding the death of Dhan Singh is absolutely vague and uncertain in as much as, the investigating officer has concluded that the cause of death of Dhan Singh could not be ascertained as no post mortem was got conducted. Thus, he submits that the trial Court misdirected itself in adding the charge under Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 302/149 IPC against the accused petitioners whilst accepting the application filed by the prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C. He thus, prays that the instant revision deserves to be accepted and the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. They urge that the prosecution has placed on record of the case, various medical reports including the CT scan report establishing beyond all manner of doubt that Dhan Singh received a depressed fracture in the incident and was continuously treated for the life threatening injury till his death. However, he failed to recover from the ill effects of the assault and ultimately passed away on 13.12.2011. They thus urge that the order under challenge does not require any interference and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Dhan Singh was very much alive till the date of framing of charges and, therefore, only the charges under Section 307 IPC and in the alternative under Section 307/149 IPC were framed against the accused. During trial, 4 witnesses were examined and the CT scan report of the deceased was proved by PW1 Dr. Naresh Saklecha. PW4 Dr. Naresh Garg opined that the head injury caused to Dhan Singh was dangerous to life. During trial, 4 witnesses were examined and the CT scan report of the deceased was proved by PW1 Dr. Naresh Saklecha. PW4 Dr. Naresh Garg opined that the head injury caused to Dhan Singh was dangerous to life. The accused have already been charged for offence under Section 307 IPC and in the alternative under Section 307/149 IPC but in the opinion of this Court, for framing charge under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution would be required to lead positive evidence to establish that the deceased expired because of the injuries received in the incident in question. Till date, there is no such evidence available on record. Dhan Singh allegedly passed away on 13.12.2011 i.e. after nearly one year & three months of the incident but his relatives did not get the body subjected to post mortem. In this background, the trial Court was totally unjustified in altering the charge against the accused and adding the charge for the offences under Section 302 and 302/149 IPC against them. The order under challenge is totally unjustified, in facts as well as law. 8. In view of the above discussion, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 1.11.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh is hereby quashed and set aside. Record be sent back forthwith. However, the prosecution shall be entitled to lead appropriate evidence to establish that Dhan Singh expired as a result of the injuries caused to him in the incident dated 28.9.2010 where after, it shall be at liberty to file a fresh application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of the charge, if so advised. In the event of any such application being filed, the same shall be considered and decided as per law. 9. Stay petition also stands disposed of.