Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 247 (RAJ)

Mangla Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2017-01-20

DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

body2017
ORDER : Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 06.08.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 3/2016 (7/2016) whereby charges have been framed against the accused petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 308, 452 and 323/34 I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused the relevant record. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he wants to press this revision petition only to the extent of the charge framed against the accused petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. 4. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per the medico legal reports and x-ray reports of injured persons Megha Ram and Smt. Shanti, all the injuries have been found simple in nature. There is no grievous injury and no injury has been caused, which is dangerous to life. Neither there was any intention or knowledge on the part of the accused petitioners that the act performed by them would cause death and for which they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as no such circumstances were existing. The scuffle took place between the parties only on a very trifling matter when the accused persons were passing through the residential house of injured persons. In such circumstance, there was no occasion to frame charge against them for offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer mentioning that the nature of injuries is not the relevant factor to be considered for framing charge for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. The real test is the knowledge or intention with which and the circumstances under which the injuries were caused. In this regard, it is submitted that injured Megha Ram has sustained as many as 11 injuries. Out of which, four injuries have been found scalp deep on his head with the measurement of 0.6" x 0.1", 3.4" x 0.1", 2.3" x 0.2" and 1.4" x 0.1" respectively. In this regard, it is submitted that injured Megha Ram has sustained as many as 11 injuries. Out of which, four injuries have been found scalp deep on his head with the measurement of 0.6" x 0.1", 3.4" x 0.1", 2.3" x 0.2" and 1.4" x 0.1" respectively. It is a different matter that after the x-ray, injuries were not found to be grievous but simply this fact does not absolve the accused persons from the liability of the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. it is further submitted that as per the statement of injured Megha Ram and Smt. Shanti, the occurrence took place on account of dispute regarding grazing their agriculture field by the flock of sheep of the accused persons. It has been specifically mentioned by injured Megha Ram that Mangla Ram caused injuries on his head by 'Kassi'. This clearly shows the intention of the accused persons. 6. In light of this factual matrix, the authorities cited by both the sides are relevant to be considered. In Shaitan Singh v. State of Raj. & Anr., reported in 2012 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) p.1311, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, it was held that the injury was grievous but not dangerous to life. It was further held in the facts and circumstances of that case that no injury was caused with such intention or knowledge that death could be possible. In such circumstance, the order of discharging accused persons from the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. was held perfect but the case in hand differs in factual matrix from the cited judgment, so far as intention/knowledge is concerned. 7. The other judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is in case of Sohan Puri & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2012 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) p.866. In this matter, two injuries sustained by the injured were found on his head and were bone-deep. 7. The other judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is in case of Sohan Puri & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2012 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) p.866. In this matter, two injuries sustained by the injured were found on his head and were bone-deep. The charge framed for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. was set aside by Coordinate Bench of this Court and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court with the specific direction to frame the charge afresh while keeping in mind the question of framing charge for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Obviously, the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is more grave as compared to the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. Thus, to my view, this judgment also does not help the petitioners. 8. The last judgment relied upon by the petitioners is in case of Balwant Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2012 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 809. In this matter, two grievous injuries were found on left forearm and scapular region. Considering them on non vital part of the body, Coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the order of the trial Court to frame charge under Section 308 I.P.C. 9. But in the case in hand, four scalp deep injuries have been found on the head of Megha Ram. Thus, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Even otherwise, the nature of injury is not the relevant criterion to decide upon the question whether the charge can be framed for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. or not. 10. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent support this view. In case of Girdhari Lal & Ors. Even otherwise, the nature of injury is not the relevant criterion to decide upon the question whether the charge can be framed for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. or not. 10. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent support this view. In case of Girdhari Lal & Ors. v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., reported in 2014 (10) R.C.R. (Crim.) p.898, it has been held that nature of the injury is not conclusive for an offence under Section 308 I.P.C. This judgment has been delivered relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Sunil Kumar v. NCT of Delhi & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC p.557 wherein it has been held as under:- "The view taken by the High Court is obviously erroneous because offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not. It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 308 IPC whereas punishment for simple hurts can be meted out under Sections 323 and 324 and for grievous hurts under Sections 325 and 326 IPC. Qualitatively, these offences are different. The High Court was thus not well advised to take the view as afore-extracted to bring down the offence to be under Sections 323/34 IPC ... ......" 11. Other part of the aforesaid judgment may also be reproduced here in support of the above view:- "The Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Kashiram & Ors., JT 2009 (2) SC 140, Ratan Singh v. State of M.P. & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 597 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Imrat & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 2967 has reiterated that whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstance that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. Consequently, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt." 12. The circumstance that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. Consequently, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt." 12. Other judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent mention the basic principles regarding framing of charges which postulate that the strong suspicion founded upon the material before the trial Court is sufficient on the basis of which charge can be framed. At the stage of framing charge, the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and to arrived at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. 13. On perusal of the order impugned dated 06.08.2016, it is apparently clear that taking these legal principles into consideration, learned trial Court has ordered to frame charge for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC. Thus, no infirmity or lacuna is found in the order impugned. Resultantly, the revision petition is found to have no substance and is accordingly dismissed.