Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2081 (RAJ)

Gokulchand v. State of Rajasthan

2021-11-09

RAMESHWAR VYAS

body2021
ORDER 1. The instant revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 16.4.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Sri Ganganagar, whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 436, 450, 147, 149 & 120-B IPC and Section 4 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (herein afterwards referred to as 'the Act of 1984'). 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: That on 25.8.2017, one Shri Bhairudan, Labour Supervisor submitted a written report stating therein that while he was posted in the office of Divisional Labour Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar, the followers of ?Dera Sachcha Sauda' entered into the office and set the property on fire by pouring petrol. As a result of which, the department suffered lots of loss. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no material available on record to show that the petitioner was present at the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention of this Court to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of witnesses namely Ravindra Kumar, Prabhu Dayal, Bherudan and Arun submits that presence of the petitioner has not been shown in the statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of statement of Prakash Gambhiri, Ashish and Ranjeet Singh, which are not sufficient to frame charges against the petitioner, since he was neither present at the spot at the time of incident nor there is any evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner made a planning to commit the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents available on record with a view to find if the facts emerging there from are taken at their face value, discloses the existence of ingredients constituting alleged offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that learned trial court framed the charges without applying judicial mind. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the revision petition and discharge the petitioner from the offence under Sections 147, 436, 450 read with Section 149 and 120-B IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 1984. 4. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the revision petition and discharge the petitioner from the offence under Sections 147, 436, 450 read with Section 149 and 120-B IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 1984. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor admits that in the police statement of above mentioned witnesses, petitioner has not been named as accused. However, he has been made accused on the basis of police statement of Prakash Gambhiri, Ashish and Ranjeet Singh. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner was present at the spot. He has neither been named in the FIR nor his name appeared in the statement of witnesses namely Ravindra Kumar, Prabhu Dayal, Bherudan and Arun recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The trial court has grossly erred in framing charges against the petitioner assuming that he was present at the spot. 6. As per the provisions of Section 228 Cr.P.C, an accused can be charged with the offence if the Court is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. In the present case, there was no ground available before the Court to assume that the petitioner was present at the place of incident. No reasoning has been given by learned trial court before ordering to frame charges against the petitioner. The impugned order of trial court framing charges against the petitioner is illegal, incorrect and improper and not on the basis of record. The police statement of witnesses namely Prakash Gambhiri, Ashish and Ranjeet Singh also does not disclose the fact that there was any planning to commit the offence. From the statement of these witnesses, it cannot be presumed that they agreed to commit the offence as alleged by the prosecution. There is no material available on record to suggest that the petitioner participated in the planning with other accused to commit offence. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.4.2021 framing charges against the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner is discharged from offence under Sections 147, 436, 450 read with Section 149 and 120-B IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 1984.