BHUPENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated November 29, 1989, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioners Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 324/149 and 325, I.P.C.

(2.) ON December 9, 1987, a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station, Dhan Mandi, Udaipur, by Shri Vijay Choudhary that in the evening at about 4.45 p.m. on that day, he was sitting in his shop and at that time accused -petitioners Bhupendra Singh and Deepak alongwith four other persons came to his shop. Bhupendra Singh was armed with an ironpipe, Deepak was armed with a Lathi and the remaining accused were armed with Lathis and swords. After reaching the shop Bhupendra Singh inflicted an injury with the ironpipe at the legs; Deepak tried to inflict injury by Lathi on his head, which landed on the right hand as the complainant raised his right hand; and the remaining acused persons started beating by legs and fists. On the basis of this report, a case Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 325, I.P.C. was registered against the present petitioners and the four others. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan under these Sections and after the submissions of the challan, the case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, who, by his order dated November 29, 1989, framed the charges Under Sections 307/149, 147, 325 and 324, I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. against the accused petitioners.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the framing of the charges against the accused -petitioner except the charge Under Section 307, I.P.C. His contention is that no charge Under Section 307, I.P.C, in the present case, is sustainable from the evidence available on record, i.e. the statements of the witnesses recorded and the documents collected by the prosecution. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on: Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan 1987 R.C.C. 142. He, therefore, prayed that the charge Under Section 307, I.P.C., as it is not sustainable, should be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order framing the charges against the petitioners.