Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 283 (RAJ)

Mukesh @ Dev v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-19

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat in Sessions Cas No. 21/2015 whereby, the learned trial Judge directed framing of charge against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 308 and 120B IPC 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the admit allegations of the prosecution, the accused before assaulting the injure persons exhorted that they will break the legs of the opponents. Drawing attention of the Court towards the injury reports of the injured Bhanwar Lal, he contends that totally superficial injuries were found on the body of the injure when medical examination was conducted. The Medical Officer referred the injured for X-ray. As per the X-ray report, no bony injury was found on the body of the injured. Learned counsel thus submits that the trial Court committed grave illegality in directing framing of charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 308 IPC. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the challan papers, the material available on record particularly the statement of the injured Bhanwar Lal and his injury reports. 5. A total of 6 injuries were found on the body of the injured Bhanwar Lal, which were all superficial in nature and were not caused on vital part of the body. While indulging in the assault, the accused were exhorting that the legs of the victim be broken. Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned trial Court committed grave error in directing framing of charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 308 IPC. There is no material on record so as to satisfy the Court that the essential elements of such offence are made out from the highest allegations of the prosecution witnesses. However, the trial Court committed no error in framing the remaining charges against the accused. 6. Consequently, the revision deserves to be and is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat is quashed to the extent whereby, charge under Section 308 IPC was framed against the accused petitioners. However, the trial Court committed no error in framing the remaining charges against the accused. 6. Consequently, the revision deserves to be and is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat is quashed to the extent whereby, charge under Section 308 IPC was framed against the accused petitioners. The remaining charge which are all triable by the Court of Magistrate are maintained. The case is toned down and be sent to the concerned CJM/ACJM for trial as per law. 7. Stay application is disposed of.