Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1655 (RAJ)

Raghunath Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-07

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court'), whereby the criminal revision petition No. 307/2018 filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The said criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.400/2017, whereby the trial court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323/34 amd 392/34 of IPC. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that on 06.02.2016, he along with two accused persons namely Sheraram and Shyamlal has stopped the complainant-Ghanshyam and two other persons who were going towards on a motorcycle at Village Sangaria and thereafter looted Rs. 1,600/- and some articles from them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was a Constable at Police Station Kuri Bhagtasni and he has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact, the complainant-Ghanshyam and two other persons, who were allegedly with him at the time of incident, had refused to identify the petitioner during the course of identification parade and had also specifically stated that the petitioner and two other accused persons have not looted them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the entire charge sheet, it is clear that there is no iota of evidence available on record against the petitioner but the trial court as well as the revisional court without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter have illegally passed the impugned orders. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore prayed that the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as revisional court be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323/34 and 392/34 of IPC. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this criminal misc. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore prayed that the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as revisional court be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323/34 and 392/34 of IPC. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this criminal misc. petition and submitted that sufficient material is available on record against the petitioner to frame charge for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323/34 and 392/34 of IPC and, therefore, there is no illegality in passing the impugned orders. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 9. The revisional court has taken into consideration the material/evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation in detail. The revisional court has observed that though the complainant and two other witnesses have not identified the petitioner and other co-accused persons, however, it is not in dispute that the vehicle-Swift Car RJ-19CG 3282 involved in commission of crime was recovered from co-accused Shera Ram. Owner of the said vehicle, in response to the notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act, has informed that the vehicle was in possession of the co-accused Shera Ram at the relevant time. The police have also collected the call details of petitioner and two other accused persons namely Sheraram and Shyamlal and concluded that from the call details, it is clear that the location of the mobile of the petitioner was found at Sangaria on 06.02.2018 at 21.45 P.M. The police have also concluded that from the mobile location of the petitioner and other accused persons, it is clear that all the accused persons were together for the whole day and they visited Village Doli of Tehsil Pachpadara and thereafter Kuri Bhagtasani, Jodhpur. 10. The revisional court is of the opinion that prima facie evidence of this effect is available on record that the petitioner and two other accused persons were together for the whole day and looking to the fact that the vehicle involved in the commission of crime was recovered from the accused Shera Ram, it cannot be said that no evidence is available against the petitioner. 11. 11. The revisional court while placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State vs. Gyani Devi, (2000) 8 SCC 239 and Suresh vs. State, (2001) 3 SCC 703 has held that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. 12. This Court is of the opinion that if the trial court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then charge has to be framed. 13. As stated earlier, the revisional court as well as trial court after taking into consideration the material available on record have arrived at a conclusion that that prima faice case for framing of charge is made out against the petitioner. 14. In view of above discussion, I am not inclined to interfere in this criminal misc. petition, the same is hereby dismissed.