Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 803 (RAJ)

Paras Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-17

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
Order : 1. The instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C . has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in Session Case No.15/2023 whereby the learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 323 , 325 , 307 IPC . 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the injury reports of injured Heer Singh, he received simple injuries, mostly on his non-vital part of the body and none of the injuries received by the injured Heer Singh is grievous in nature. Counsel submits that in the incident, the petitioner also received injuries, which are simple in nature. Thus, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the petitioner. Yet, the trial court framed the charge for offence under Section 307 IPC . Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order to the extent of framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner being per se illegal may be quashed and set aside. 3. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that at the time of framing charge, meticulous examination of evidence is not necessary. The impugned order of framing charge is perfectly justified and requires no interference from this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order of framing charge. 6. According to the statement of injured Heer Singh, the accused-petitioner tried to ran over the motorcycle upon him and due to which he received injuries and according to the injury report of injured Heer Singh, none of the injuries is found to be grievous in nature. Thus, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the petitioner. At the most, the case may not travel beyond the offence under Section 308 IPC . But, the learned trial court did not properly consider the injury report of the injured Heer Singh and has framed the charge under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner, which is apparently illegal and thus, the impugned order to the extent of framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC to be quashed and set aside. 7. But, the learned trial court did not properly consider the injury report of the injured Heer Singh and has framed the charge under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner, which is apparently illegal and thus, the impugned order to the extent of framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC to be quashed and set aside. 7. Hence, the order impugned dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside to the extent of framing charge for offence under Section 307 IPC and the trial court is directed to frame the charge for offence under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC against the petitioner. The other charges framed by the trial court shall remain intact. 8. The instant revision petition stands disposed of. Stay application is also decided.