MEGH SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated November 2, 1987, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioners.

(2.) RAGHUNATH Ram, on February 12, 1986, at about 7. 00 p. m. lodged a report against accused Megh Singh, Gopal Singh and Jag Singh at Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur. On the basis of this report, a case under Sections 364 and 365 I. P. C was registered against Megh Singh, Gopal Singh and Jag Singh. The Police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the accused petitioner under Sections 365, 328 and 323 I. P. C. The police, also, submitted the challan against accused Jai Singh under Sections 365 and 323 I. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused, framed charges against accused Megh Singh, Gopal Singh and Jag Singh under Sections 365, 323 and 328 I. P. C. and against accused Jai Singh, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges under Sections 365 and 323 I. P. C. and against accused Yasin under Sections 365 and 323 I. P. C. It is against this order framing the charges that the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

(3.) AFTER a careful perusal of the record of the case, I am of the opinion that so far as the ingredients of the offence under Sec 328 I. P. C. are concerned, they are wanting. Even from the unrebutted evidence, collected by the prosecu- tion on record, no case for framing the charge under Sec. 328 I. P. C. is made- out. Though the Court is not expected or justified in going into the meticulous consideration of the evidence and critically appreciate the evidence collected by the police, but if the facts, emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, do not I disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence then the charge should not have been framed. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the ingredients of the offence under Section 328 I. P. C. are wanting in the present case. The charge framed against the accused petitioners under Section 328 I. P. C. therefore, deserves to be quashed.