Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 270 (RAJ)

Naina Ram @ Noma v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-17

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this revision, the petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 26.8.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Aburoad, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No.87/2015 directing framing of charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 332/149, 353/149, 333/149, 336/149 IPC and 3 PDPP Act. 2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that ex-facie, from the admitted allegations of the prosecution, the charges under Sections 333 and 307 IPC are not made out against the petitioners. Drawing attention of the Court to the X-ray report of the injured Anil Kumar, he contends that the Radiololgist has given a specific opinion that the injury No.2 caused to Anil Kumar was simple in nature and therefore, the trial Court was absolutely unjustified in directing framing of charge for the offence under Section 333 IPC against the accused. He further contends that the admitted case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet that the accused were protesting against the management of the cement factory. The Police party had gone there to stop the protest. During this process, stones were pelted and a few injuries were caused to the Police personnel. None of the injuries was caused on the vital body part of the injured. The injuries are all superficial in nature and were not life threatening. Thus, he contends that by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that the petitioners intended to make an attempt at the life of the members of the police party. Thus, he submits that the impugned order deserves to be modified in the terms prayed for. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that none of the injured was caused any injury on the vital part of the body. Furthermore, as per the medical reports available on record, all the injured other than Constable Anil Kumar received simple superficial injuries in the incident. Only Anil Kumar lost an incisor tooth as a result of the impact of the stone pelted towards him which injury has been opined to be grievous in the MLC. Furthermore, as per the medical reports available on record, all the injured other than Constable Anil Kumar received simple superficial injuries in the incident. Only Anil Kumar lost an incisor tooth as a result of the impact of the stone pelted towards him which injury has been opined to be grievous in the MLC. It is also not in dispute that the Police party had gone to the place of occurrence in order to stop the proposed agitation of the labourers against the management of the cement factory. The allegation of the prosecution witnesses is that they tried to pacify the crowd led by the present petitioners, but the mob started raising slogans and was trying to forcibly enter the factory. During this process, stone pelting started and as a result thereof, few superficial and one grievous injury was caused to the Police personnel. 4. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court was absolutely unjustified in framing charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC against the petitioners. The trial Court itself appears to be wavering on the issue as to whether the said charge should be framed against the petitioners because an opinion was expressed in the order that whether or not the injuries caused to the injured were life threatening or whether accused intended to kill the injured would be a matter of evidence. If this was so, then the trial Court should have waited for evidence to be recorded and then it could have exercised the powers under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for altering the charge suitable. In any event, charge could not have been framed against the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC in absence of a firm opinion as per Section 228 Cr.P.C. that the accused had committed such offence. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained to the extent of the offence under Section 307 IPC. So far as the offence under Section 333 IPC is concerned, while preparing the injury report of Anil Kumar, the medical officer noticed that his second incisor tooth of right side lower jaw was missing with fresh bleeding and a lacerated wound was seen at the site of the tooth. The medical officer clearly stated in the injury report that the injury is grievous in nature. The medical officer clearly stated in the injury report that the injury is grievous in nature. When Anil Kumar was later on subjected to X-ray examination, the Radiologist reported that the injury was simple in nature for the obvious reason that once the tooth was extracted, the jaw bone would not show any fracture. Undeniably, an injury leading to missing of a tooth is a grievous injury as defined in Section 320 IPC. 5. As a consequence of the above discussion, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed in part. The impugned order dated 26.8.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Aburoad, District Sirohi is hereby quashed to the extent charge for offence under Section 307/149 IPC was framed against the petitioners. However, the remaining charges are maintained.