RAJU LAL AND ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Section 308, or under Section 308/34 IPC, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

(2.) Mr. Sunil Yadav, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has vehemently contended that according to the injury report of Smt. Santosh, she had suffered an injury on her head. According to the doctor, the said injury was caused by a blunt weapon, and was not considered to be dangerous to life. At best, it can be considered to be grievous in nature. Therefore, an offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out. Secondly, different witnesses have given different version of the incident. Therefore, they are not reliable witnesses. Thirdly, the incident had occurred over a trifle matter of non-payment of electricity bill. Therefore, there was no intention to attempt culpable homicide. Hence, the framing of the charge for offence under Section 308 IPC is unsustainable.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel and perused the impugned order as well as the copy of the charge-sheet submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.