VIJAYPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, learned Public prosecutor appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1-State as well as learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2/complainant and perused impugned order dated 04.03.2013 and the relevant documents placed before me during the course of arguments by the parties.

(2.) THIS revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 04.03.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Bharatpur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 51/2012, whereby the Trial Court has issued process against the petitioner, while invoking its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 307, 324, 326 IPC and ordered to summon the petitioner by bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused-petitioner vehemently contended that impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is patently illegal, improper, unjust and not sustainable, being contrary to the facts and material available on record. Learned Trial Court has invoked power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without appreciating the evidence to the extent that whether there is any hopeful chance of conviction of the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further contended that the petitioner is a Government Teacher and he has nothing to do with any dispute. His Bhabhi used to contest Sarpanch elections in the village against Digambhar. Due to groupism, the dispute is going on and another dispute is in connection with the lands between Sahab Singh, Meghshyam and complainant, whose lands are adjacent to each other. In that back ground, complainant Ghuran Singh @ Ghure received some superficial burn injuries on his person and these were towards left side front of chest and left arm. The FIR was lodged after a great delay. Occurrence in this case alleged to have taken place on 09.05.2010 at 1.30 A.M. FIR was registered on 13.05.2010 at 9.30 A.M. and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. In these circumstances, it is clear that whole case of the prosecution is false and concocted against the petitioner. Learned Trial Court failed to note that this FIR was lodged after 3-4 days of the alleged occurrence and in that light, there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to proceed against the accused-petitioner in this case. From the injury report, it is clear that whatever injuries had been received by the complainant, those injuries were superficial burn injuries towards the left side of front chest and left arm. The complainant wanted to believe that hand grenade was thrown on the chest but no injury was received by the hand grenade. Thus, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are totally false. Learned Trial Court has not properly considered that there is no material to show that the recovered articles which is said to be of hand grenade(Hathgola) neither proved by the FSL Department till today nor any evidence has come forward from the Explosive Department. If hand grenade would have been thrown then some injuries of small pallets could have been received by the complainant-Respondent No. 2. So, in these circumstances, there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner, but despite that learned Trial Court has committed an illegality in taking cognizance against the petitioner. Independent witnesses have totally denied of hearing of any blast of any article. Thus, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to take cognizance against the petitioner in this case and the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is bad in the eyes of law, hence, liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabjit Singh And Another Vs. State of Punjab And Another, (2009) 16 SCC 46=2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 573.