UMESH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.RC., the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.3.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand, in Sessions Case No. 26/2003, whereby the trial court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 307/149, 326/149, 329, 325/149, 341 and 323/149 I.PC. and Sec. 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order impugned.

(3.) On 14.11.2002 an F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station, Rajsamand, inter alia stating therein that Tilak Singh complainant, his father and brothers Shiv and Rajesh were going on Motor Cycles from Kakroli to Nathdwara, when they were opposite to Shrinath Marble, at that relevant time accused petitioners Chandershekhar @ Pinku, Gorwa, Kailash Gurgar, Umesh Choudhary, Bhagwat Singh @ Bhadu Gurgar, Dharmendra @ Muna Misra, Prakash @ Pankaj Gurgar, Muna Gurgar, Bhupendra Gurgar, Naru Gorva came with swords and iron rods. Chandrashekhar @ Pinku and other accused assaulted them. It was further alleged that accused started assaulting them with swords and iron rods. Details of which were given in F.I.R. Police after investigation filed challan against the accused petitioners noticed above. Injured Shiv Singh and Rajesh Choudhary sustained injuries at the hands of the accused petitioners. The accused persons were arrested and at the instance of petitioners Chandershakher, Bhagwat Singh, Prakash Chandra and Kailash Chandra swords were recovered and at the instance of co-accused Dharmendra and Umesh iron rods were recovered. Injured Shiv Singh was medically examined. According to medical report, injured Shiv Singh sustained 14 injuries, out of which 7 were caused by sharp weapon and were found dangerous to life and so is the case of injured Rajesh Choudhary. He also suffered number of injuries and injury No. 2 was found dangerous to life. Considering the statements of prosecution witnesses, medical reports and upon hearing the parties, the trial court prima facie came to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to presume that the accused petitioners have committed the offence noticed above. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is riot required to meticulously examine the evidence. The trial court is not required to give elaborate reason by detailed order. It is only that the trial court is prima facie satisfied on consideration of the material and hearing of the parties that there are grounds to presume that the accused have committed the offences charged with. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned. No case for interference is made out. The revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.