Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2898 (RAJ)

Vichittar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-11-22

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner Vichittar Singh for assailing the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.9/2015, whereby the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and 134/187 of the M.V. Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, assisted by Mr. Digvijay Singh, vehemently and fervently urged that there is no material available on record of the case to show that the act of the accused was intentional and a case of accident pure and simple has been given the colour of murder by the interested and partisan prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that the police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC only and thus, there was no cause for the trial court to frame charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He, thus, implored the court to accept the revision and quash the charge framed against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC and 134/187 of the M.V. Act. 3. Per contra, Mr. Farzand Ali, learned G.A.-cum-A.A.G., vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that numerous witnesses examined during investigation stated that the accused intentionally drove his tractor over Prithvi Singh, thereby killing him instantly at the spot. He, thus, urged that the trial court was absolutely justified in framing charge against the petitioner as above. On these grounds, he sought dismissal of the revision. 4. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Digvijay Singh, representing the petitioner and Mr. Farzand Ali, G.A.-cum-A.A.G., assisted by Mr. Vikram Sharma, P.P. 5. After evaluating the evidence available on record and going through the impugned order and upon a threadbare perusal of the challan papers, it is apparent that the Investigating Officer had collected plausible evidence during the investigation, which was sufficient to satisfy the court that the accused intentionally ran over the deceased Prithvi Singh by his tractor, thereby killing him. The Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the accused only for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. The Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the accused only for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. The complainant approached this court by way of a revision No.14/2013 being aggrieved of the orders of the subordinate courts, whereby his prayer to modify the charge to one under Section 302 IPC was turned down. While deciding the said revision by the order dated 20.09.2013, this court observed as below :- "After investigation in FIR No.123/2011, police had submitted a charge-sheet under Section 304A of IPC against Vichitra Singh for causing death of Prithvi Singh (father of complainant petitioner Ganga Singh) by rashly and negligently driving a tractor. At this stage, death of Prithvi Singh by a tractor which was being driven by accused Vichitra Singh may not be disputed for the purpose of charge or cognizance looking to the evidence collected by the police during the investigation, but the question arises that if the driver of the tractor was having previous enmity with the deceased and an FIR No.28/11 was already pending at Police Station, Sri Vijaynagar in which deceased Prithvi Singh had charged Raju Singh and others under Sections 365, 342 IPC etc., then in such a case grave suspicion arises that the said Prithvi Singh might have been killed intentionally by accused Vichitra Singh who killed him by driving a tractor and crushing him under the wheels of the tractor and it is also on the record that after killing Prithvi Singh, accused Vichitra Singh had run away from the spot by taking lift from an another tractor which was coming with the first tractor. In the circumstances of the case, grave suspicion had arisen that Vichitra Singh might have committed murder of Ganga Singh and so when the charge-sheet was filed under Section 304A of IPC in the trial court, the complainant (son of the deceased) protested the matter and looking to the statements of Ganga Singh complainant as well as witnesses Daljeet Singh, Phakira Ram, Shaitan Singh, Mahendra Singh, Seokaran, Smt. Pawani, Vikram Singh, Sonu Singh, Son Singh, Tara Chand, Shanker Singh, Ram Kumar, Ramu, Bhagwan Singh, Rajendra Singh, Sampat Ram, Kartar Singh, Satpal, Dilbag Singh, Mool Singh and Balveer Singh, the Magistrate was compelled to take cognizance under Section 302 IPC. It is a settled position of law that when there is grave suspicion, charge can be framed against the accused. It is a settled position of law that when there is grave suspicion, charge can be framed against the accused. Looking to the previous enmity between the accused and deceased, the trial court was fully justified in taking cognizance under Section 302 IPC against accused (non-petitioner no.2) Vichitra Singh and hence the following ruling submitted by accused does not apply to the facts of the present case, Harish Chandraprasad Mani Vs. State of Jharkhand, Cr. Appeal No.124/2007 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.1.2007." 6. Manifestly, thus, this court concluded that there was sufficient evidence available on record, which justified taking of cognizance against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The observations of this court made in the said order have attained finality as the same were not challenged any further. The order takes note of the fact that previously also Prithvi Singh had filed FIR No.28/2011, in which, the accused petitioner and some others were arraigned as accused for the offences under Sections 365 and 342 IPC etc. In the present case, the Investigating Officer collected evidence during the investigation, which gives rise to a grave suspicion that the accused intentionally ran the deceased over by his tractor. Thus, the trial court, in my opinion, was absolutely justified in framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 IPC 7. Hence, I find no merit in this revision, which is dismissed as such. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial.