Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2167 (RAJ)

Mohd. Rameez v. State of Rajasthan

2018-10-30

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2018
JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - This matter is taken up for admission as the petitioners have moved an application for extension of interim order dated 24.4.2017. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are four persons who are injured in this case. Investigating Officer on his own sought information from the doctors with regard to the injuries sustained by Shahjad Khan and was not satisfied with the report and sought opinion again from the Medical Board. It is contended that all the family members have been made accused in this case. None injury sustained is on the vial part of the body and offence under section 308 IPC is not made out. It is also contended that the incident took place on 29.5.2016 and in the initial report, there was no mention about hearing loss. Hearing loss of Shahjad was first recorded on 2.7.2016. 3. It is also contended that no weapon has been recovered by the Investigating Officer as is apparent from perusal of the chargesheet. Thus, framing of charge is bad in law. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the revision petition. His contention is that Praveen Bagum has received a lacerated wound on the parietal region. Imran Khan has received injuries over the face below left eye. Shahjad Khan received blow on the parietal region. From the report of expert, he has mild hearing loss of both the ears. Shahdab has also received injury on the parietal region. It is contended that the injuries have been caused on the parietal region which points towards intention and knowledge of the accused and since accused were members of unlawful assembly, framing of charge read with section 149 IPC cannot be said to be bad in law. 5. Shahdab has also received injury on the parietal region. It is contended that the injuries have been caused on the parietal region which points towards intention and knowledge of the accused and since accused were members of unlawful assembly, framing of charge read with section 149 IPC cannot be said to be bad in law. 5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Ram Kishore v. State & Ors., 2008(3) RLW 2440 (Raj.), Girija Shankar v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 1808 , R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2004 SC 1812 and Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2004 SC 3687 wherein powers of High Court in revision at the stage of framing of charge were discussed and it was held that the court is merely required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence, but at that stage it is not required to marshal the evidence with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. 6. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the statements of witnesses have been recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 and in the FIR itself, it is mentioned that the petitioners attacked the complainant party and threatened to kill the complainant party. 7. I have considered the contentions . 8. Non-recovery of weapon of offence, to my mind would not have any effect on the framing of charge as there is specific allegation and injuries have been caused to the complainant party. Lapse if any on the part of the Investigating Officer would not give benefit to the petitioners. Obtaining report from the doctors and thereafter seeking further opinion from the Medical Board cannot be considered to be an act favouring the complainant party as the Investigating Officer was within his right to seek opinion from the Medical Board. There has been hearing loss to one of the injured and the injuries are also caused on the vital part of the body. There has been hearing loss to one of the injured and the injuries are also caused on the vital part of the body. Though the injuries are not found to be dangerous to life but at this stage, in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court and in view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Niranjan Singh's case, there being prima facie case against the petitioners and there being evidence recorded before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 the court below was justified in framing charges against the petitioners. This court is of the view that the court is not required to make roving enquiry into the matter and weigh the evidence as if a trial is being conducted. 9. There appears to be no impropriety infirmity in the order passed by the learned court below. 10. This criminal revision petition is according dismissed. Stay application and interim application also stand disposed.