Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2496 (RAJ)

Dayanand Jat v. State of Rajasthan

2017-11-14

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this revision, the accused petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 17.5.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 10/2015 whereby, the learned trial court directed framing of charges against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 325/149 and 307/149 I.P.C. 2. A grievance has been raised in this revision to the impugned order to the extent, charge was framed against the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 307 and in the alternative, Section 307/149 I.P.C. The prosecution has set up a case that the incident at hand is a fall out of an earlier F.I.R. of assault lodged against the accused petitioner Dayanand. It is alleged that the injured of this case i.e. Bishna Ram had given evidence in the earlier case and resultantly, Dayanand was arrested and was sent to Police custody. Later, he was released on bail. He started bearing a grudge against Bishna Ram. On 3.1.2015 in the evening, whilst Bishna Ram had gone to Mani Ram's shop for purchasing Bidis and was returning back, the accused party surrounded him in front of the house of Surja Ram. They exhorted that enemy who had given evidence should be killed. Saying this, the accused persons who were armed with lathis, surrounded Bishna Ram and assaulted him indiscriminately. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Inderchand at the P.S. Bhaleri for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C. Bishna Ram's injuries were examined at the PBM Hospital, Bikaner on 6.1.2015. He was found having a plaster of pairs slab on his left arm. He was complaining of pain and tenderness on the left leg, the chest area and the right forearm. Upon x-ray being conducted, the injured was found suffering from fracture of humerus bone. No other bony injury was noticed on any part of his body. Consequently, the injury No. 1 of the injury report was opined to be grievous in nature. The Investigating Officer proceeded to file the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences mentioned above. The trial court framed charges against them in the same terms by the impugned order which is challenged in this revision. 3. Consequently, the injury No. 1 of the injury report was opined to be grievous in nature. The Investigating Officer proceeded to file the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences mentioned above. The trial court framed charges against them in the same terms by the impugned order which is challenged in this revision. 3. I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the impugned order as well as the Challan papers. 4. Needless to say that the determinative factor for deciding whether charge should be framed against the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not the nature of the injuries suffered but the intent and knowledge of the accused persons while indulging in the assault. As has been noted above, the accused persons, six in number were armed with lathis and were having the complainant at their mercy. Despite that, not a single member of the alleged unlawful assembly aimed and inflicted a lathi blow on any vital body part of the injured Bishna Ram. Though in the F.I.R., as many as 8 accused persons were named as the assailants but the small number of injuries received by Bishna Ram belies the said allegation. Moreover, if the accused were intending to kill Bishna Ram, nothing prevented them from aiming the lathis on his head. The fact that 6 to 8 accused persons all having lathis in their hands, launched a concerted attack on the injured with the intention of killing him but yet not a single lathi was aimed on the head clearly indicates that the intention of the accused was nothing beyond chastising the injured and did not extend to making an attempt on his life. 5. In view of the discussion made here-in-above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the trial court was totally unjustified in framing charge against the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and in the alternative, Section 307/149 I.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.5.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu is quashed and set aside to the extent charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Section 307, 307/149 I.P.C. The accused petitioners are discharged from these offences. However, the impugned order is affirmed regarding the other charges which involve Magistrate triable offences only. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.5.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu is quashed and set aside to the extent charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Section 307, 307/149 I.P.C. The accused petitioners are discharged from these offences. However, the impugned order is affirmed regarding the other charges which involve Magistrate triable offences only. Hence, the case is toned down and shall be sent to the court of the concerned Magistrate for trial as per law. 7. The revision is allowed in these terms.