OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 16.6.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 15/2008 (State vs. Aslam and Ors.), whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 365, 367, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 and 307/149, I.P.C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, while arguing the revision petition against the impugned order, has proposed not to press the revision petition so far as petitioner No.4, Aslam is concerned and thus, he limited his arguments challenging the impugned order of the trial Judge to the extent petitioners Om Prakash, Vijay Kumar and Manoj Kumar are concerned. Learned counsel submits that in this case the "Parcha-Bayan" of one Seeta Ram was recorded at the Shekhawati Hospital on 19.5.208, as per which when the injured was going towards the house of Vijay Singh on 18.5.2008 at about 3.00 p.m., a car over-took his car and stopped it. From that car, Manish, Aslam and five to seven other persons surrounded the car of the complainant, pulled him out from the car and forcibly put him in the car of the accused persons. Then he was taken to Naya Bazar Chowk, where Manish Harijan assaulted him with a knife on the right hand and thereafter he was beaten indiscriminately by lathis, sariyas etc. and thereby numerous injuries were inflicted and caused on him. The first informant shouted and then became unconscious. On the basis of the said "Parcha-Bayan", an FIR No. 75/2008 was registered at Police Station, Sujangarh and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, the statement of injured Seeta Ram was recorded under Section 161 Gr.P.C. and in this statement as well, the names of only two assailants, viz., Manish Harijan and Aslam were disclosed and no other accused was named by the injured. The statements of various other persons, viz. Rajendra, Sarvesh, Roopa Ram and Leeladhar were recorded, who named only Manish Harijan and Aslam as the assailants. Witnesses Manoj Godara and Panna Lal Prajapat were also examined, who, though had taken the injured to the hospital but do not claim to have seen any assailant.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order of the trial Judge, learned counsel for the petitioners submits hat the learned trial Judge himself has observed at page No.2 of the impugned order that none of the witnesses of the prosecution has named the petitioners as the assailants and that no test identification parade has been conducted for establishing the identity of the petitioners as the assailants. The observation made by he learned trial Judge at page No.2 of the impugned order reads as under : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_2781_RAJLW3_2013.jpg</IMG> Despite that the learned trial Judge has framed the charges against the petitioners simply because he investigating officer chose to file a charge-sheet against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Judge is not the mouth piece of the prosecution and that consideration of a sessions case at the state of framing of charges is not a mechanical exercise. He submits that the trial Judge has committed grave error and illegality in framing charges against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences despite making the aforesaid observation that there was no evidence as per the charge-sheet to connect the petitioners with the crime. He further submits that the impugned order, whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioners, entails a grave consequence because the same virtually amounts to directing the innocent persons to face the trial for the offences involving life imprisonment, thus, he submits that the impugned order virtually amounts to an invasion of the fundamental right, i.e. right to life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.