Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1202 (RAJ)

Trilok Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2021-07-23

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners for assailing the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra in Sessions Case No.23/2017, whereby charges were framed against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 325/34 and 354/34 IPC. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners in this revision is regarding the charge under Section 308 IPC. In this regard, Mr. S.D. Goswami, learned counsel representing the petitioners, drew the court's attention to the following conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer in the charge-sheet :- 3. It may be mentioned herein that the Investigating Officer found only the two petitioners involved in the offences and the other persons named by the complainant in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses were exonerated. The complainant filed an application under Section 193 CrPC, which was dismissed. However, qua the petitioners, the learned trial court proceeded to frame charges as above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the injuries inflicted to injured Raju Singh were on the hands. Even though such injuries were grievous, apparently, the ingredients of the offence under Section 308 would not be made out because by causing such injuries, it cannot be inferred that the accused had intention of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The injuries are on non-vital body parts and thus, the order framing charge deserves to be quashed to the extent of offence under Section 308 IPC. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. He urged that the petitioners forcibly trespassed into the house of the complainant and launched an armed assault. Numerous persons from the complainant's family including two ladies were beaten in a brutal manner and innumerable injuries were inflicted to them all over their bodies. Thus, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court was absolutely justified in directing framing of the charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 308 IPC as well. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order and the challan papers. The conclusion of the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation referred to Supra clearly indicates that the parties were bearing animosity towards each other because of a longstanding land dispute. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order and the challan papers. The conclusion of the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation referred to Supra clearly indicates that the parties were bearing animosity towards each other because of a longstanding land dispute. The incident precipitated all of a sudden after exchange of profanities between Raju Singh and Bhanwar Lal. Bhanwar Lal's brother Trilokchand, Raju Singh's wife and other family members reached the spot upon hearing the commotion. The Investigating Officer did not find the offence under the POCSO Act made out against the accused. So far as the injuries caused to injured Raju Singh are concerned, as per the medical report, both the grievous injuries caused to him were on the hands and on the basis of these grievous injuries, the offence under Section 308 IPC was applied to the case. In the cross case lodged from the petitioners' side, charge-sheet has been filed against Raju Singh, Munaish Devi @ Guddi and Sonu Singh for the offences under Section 341, 323 and 34 IPC. Apparently, the Investigating Officer did not find the theory of the injured Raju having been forcibly dragged to the field and then beaten up substantiated and charge-sheet was not filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 342 or 365 IPC. 7. This court is called upon to examine whether the accused had any intention to commit culpable homicide of injured Raju Singh. Upon perusal of the statement of Raju Singh recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC, he alleged that he was picked up by Bhanwar Lal, Trilokchand and their sons and was taken to the field of Nandlal. Trilokchand, Bhanwar Lal and Trilokchand's sons and three other assailants inflicted Gandasi blows to him. Both of his hands were broken and he also received injuries to his head, back and knees. On examining the injury reports of Raju Singh and the other injured persons from the complainant side, it becomes clear that all the injuries caused to the members of the complainant party were abrasions, bruises, lacerated wounds and complaints of pain. Not a single injury was caused to anyone by a sharp weapon. Thus, the statement of Raju Singh that the accused persons were armed with Gandasis is falsified on the face of the record. Not a single injury was caused to anyone by a sharp weapon. Thus, the statement of Raju Singh that the accused persons were armed with Gandasis is falsified on the face of the record. The injuries caused to the injured persons other than Raju Singh were all superficial, trivial sized and simple in nature. Raju Singh received five injuries in all, of which two were lacerated wounds, one was abrasion and two were minuscule abrasions, details of which are as under :- 1. Lacerated wound - 3.0 cm x 2.0 cm - Between right thumb and index finger 2. Lacerated wound - 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm - Dislocation of 1/3 of left forearm 3. Abrasion - 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm - Root of nose 4. Abrasion - 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm - Right front parietal region 5. Abrasion - 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm - Left front parietal region 8. On x-ray examination, fracture was found on the left forearm and there was dislocation of first carp metacarpal joint and metacarpophal angeal joint and thus, the injuries Nos.l and 2 were opined to be grievous, whereas the other injuries were opined to be simple in nature. Manifestly, looking to the nature and location of these injuries and the manner in which the incident started, no inference whatsoever can be drawn that the accused persons intended to commit culpable homicide of anyone from the complainant side. It is admitted that the Investigating Officer has filed a charge-sheet in the cross case as well. Thus, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained to the extent of the order framing charge against the accused for the offence under Section 308 IPC. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra in Sessions Case No.23/2017 is quashed and set aside to the extent of charge framed for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC against the petitioners. The petitioners are discharged from the said offence. As the remaining offences are triable by a Court of Magistrate, the case shall be toned down and transmitted to the court of the Magistrate concerned as per law for trial. The revision is partly allowed in these terms.