PYARE LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5.5.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karauli, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 341, 323, IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the petitioners. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 4.3.2001, one Babulal lodged a report at Police Station, Karauli, against the petitioners, wherein he claimed that while he was going to his house, near Bhanwar Vilas, Pyare Lal (accused petitioner 0.1 before this Court), spit upon him. When he protested, both Pyare Lal and his brother, Ramesh, told him that there is nothing wrong if Pyare Lal's spit fell upon him, as complainant's ancestors used to lift their dirt. When the complainant protested about any comment being made about his ancestors, Pyare Lal, Ramesh and Amit started assaulting the complainant with a stick and belts. When he fell down, they continued to kick him and used words with regard to his caste. It is only upon hearing his hue and cry that Pradeep, Mahendra and Nasir rushed to his rescue. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR was registered for offences under Section 341, 323 IPC and for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. But after a thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative F.R. in favour of the petitioner. However, after considering the protest petition filed by complainant, vide order dated 17.6.2003, the learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioners. Subsequently, vide order dated 5.5.2005, the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the order dated 5.5.2005 is a highly mechanical order as the learned Judge has merely observed that "sufficient evidence does exist for framing charges for the offences mentioned above". Therefore, relying on the case of Mohan Lal Rao & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan,2008 3 RCC 1102, the learned counsel has contended that the learned Judge ought to have passed a reasoned order and should have atleast discussed some evidence produced before it by the prosecution.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that in the detailed charge order passed by the learned Judge, he has clearly stated the evidence produced by the prosecution. Therefore, it is not an essential requirement that while passing the impugned order, the Judge ought to have expressed his opinion about proceeding against the petitioners.