Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2689 (RAJ)

Janta v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-11-02

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and by setting aside the order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, in Session case No. 22/2021, ordering to frame charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 302 IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be discharged and case file be sent under Section 228 Cr.P.C. for trial of offences which are triable by Judicial Magistrate. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case, as the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, are that the complainant-Shaukat Ali, on 31.10.2020 lodged a typed report at Police Station, Sendra, Pali stating therein that on 30.10.2020, in the afternoon at about 03:00 p.m. when the complainant himself and one Smt. Hajri (his Badi Maa) were present at their home, one Ramesh s/o. Bhanwaroo, Rafiq s/o. Rajan, Janta w/o. Rajan, Mumtaz w/o. Ashok and others conspired and trespassed into their home and assaulted them with sticks and weapons; as a result whereof they sustained injuries, and had to be taken to a hospital, namely, A.K.A.H., Beawar. And that similarly, on 31.10.2020, some persons, including, but not limited to Rajan, Sajan, Shakur, Dilfariyaad, Hema, Rafiq, Guman Ramesh, Janta, Fameeda, Mumtaz, Hasina, Sabina, Maya, Jameela, Asha and Kamla, broke into their house and assaulted them with sharp-edged weapons, due to which injuries were sustained on their head, hand, feet, waist and other parts of their body, and that, the complainant's wife Jameela, was dragged out of the house by her hair, and was also threatened, as a consequence of attempting to protect their aunt, Smt. Hajri, the day before in the aforementioned scuffle. 2.1. On the basis of the aforementioned report, an F.I.R. bearing No. 195/2020 was registered at Police Station, Sendra for the offences under Sections 452, 341, 323, 354(kha), 143, 149 I.P.C. And that, during the course of investigation, Smt. Hajri passed away on 27.11.2020, on count of the injuries sustained by her in the alleged incident. 2.1. On the basis of the aforementioned report, an F.I.R. bearing No. 195/2020 was registered at Police Station, Sendra for the offences under Sections 452, 341, 323, 354(kha), 143, 149 I.P.C. And that, during the course of investigation, Smt. Hajri passed away on 27.11.2020, on count of the injuries sustained by her in the alleged incident. After investigation, the offences were found to be made out against the present petitioner, the accused Janta @ Jannat under Sections 302, 341 & 323/149 I.P.C.; against accused Rajan Kathat, Sajan Kathat, Taju Kathat @ Ramesh and Rafiq Kathat for the offences under Sections 147, 341 & 323 I.P.C.; and charge sheet was filed against the above-named accused under the above-mentioned Sections respectively, on 15.01.2021 before the Judicial Magistrate, Barr; cognizance for the same was taken against the above-named accused, and the matter, was committed to the concerned Sessions Court. The matter was accordingly transferred to the learned Trial Court for the necessary adjudication. The learned court below vide the impugned order dated 01.08.2022, framed charges against the present petitioner Janta @ Jannat Bano under Sections 302, 147, 341 & 323/149 IPC, and against others for the offences under Sections 147, 341 & 323/149. Hence, the present petitioner Janta @ Jannat Bano has assailed the said order by preferring the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is one among many accused persons, and that injuries cannot be directly attributed to her, as the same 'slaps and fists' have been attributed to Ramesh, Rafiq and Mumtaj, and that therefore the charges framed against the present petitioner, ought to be quashed, as the charge for the offence under Section 302 cannot be levelled against the present petitioner, in light of such weak allegations. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the death of Smt. Hajri occurred about one month after the alleged incident in question, and that the cause of the same was opined to be 'septicemic shock' as a result of perforation peritonitis of small intestine with associated complications. 4. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the death of Smt. Hajri occurred about one month after the alleged incident in question, and that the cause of the same was opined to be 'septicemic shock' as a result of perforation peritonitis of small intestine with associated complications. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the aforementioned submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court, after taking into due consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case and after appreciating the evidence placed on record before it, to the extent necessary at the stage of framing of charge, has rightly passed the impugned order. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order of framing of charges against the petitioner, wherein a detailed analysis or a roving enquiry is not required at the stage concerned. 6. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case. 7. This Court finds that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned Trial Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors. (2012) 1 SCC 680 and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290 . 8. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused person(s) is made out. And that the facts that emerge from the case may be taken at face value; if they disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the charges may be framed. 9. This Court observes that the nature of the allegations make out a prima facie case against the present petitioner, and the language of the provision of law contained in Section 228 Cr.P.C. is "presuming", which has been consciously inserted by the legislature, with the intention that if the Court strongly suspects that the accused person(s) is in any way connected with the commission of the alleged offence(s), then it may proceed to frame charges against the accused person(s). 10. 10. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court, at this stage. 11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.