DHARAMPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh framing charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 307 IPC and 3/25, 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, neither in the FIR nor in the statement of the injured any allegation has been made against the petitioner regarding having caused any injury to him. Thus, it is submitted that since the injured himself has not made any allegation against the petitioner, the order framing charges against the petitioner cannot be justified at all. He submits that there was no motive for the petitioner to cause any injury to the injured because the injured is his own close relative. He further submits that even if the allegation of the witnesses regarding the gun shot injury having been caused by the petitioner is accepted, then too, the offence at best cannot travel beyond Section 337 IPC. It is submitted that the injured and the petitioner were both participating in a marriage and the highest allegation of the prosecution is that while dancing together the petitioner aimed the gun at the ground and made a fire which hit on the foot of the injured. Thus, it is submitted that neither there was any intention for the petitioner to have caused the injury to the injured nor their exists any material to show that the injury was caused by the petitioner to the injured.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submit that in this case, the petitioner's intention was to implicate two other persons in a false case of attempt to murder. The two other persons were Ranveer and Rai Singh and with this intention the petitioner clandestinely fire a gun shot which hit on the leg of Rajendra. Thus, it is submitted that the act of the petitioner was not only intended to causing the gun shot injury to Rajendra deliberately but also to project the said fire to have been made by two other innocent persons. Thus, the petitioner wanted to entangle them in a false case of attempt to murder. Hence, it is submitted that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality.