MAJOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Section 397, 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal Original Case No. 40/2012, vide which, charges were framed against the petitioner and others for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 427, 307 read with 149 IPC. An FIR No. 106/2012 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Siwana for the abovementioned sections. The matter was investigated. Charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and the charges under the abovementioned sections were framed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order framing charge under Sec. 307 IPC.

(2.) While praying for quashing of the charge under Section 307 IPC, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the injuries were simple in nature. Hence, no offence under Section 307 IPC can be said to be made out. Secondly, as per the allegation, a number of persons have attacked the complainant and the injured with deadly weapons. In spite of the same, the complainant and the injured received only simple injuries. In case, the petitioners had intention to kill, the injuries would have been grievous. It was further contended that there is no opinion of the doctor that any of the injuries were dangerous to life. Lastly, there is nothing on record which suggests that the petitioner continued to inflict injury after the injured fell on the ground. It reveals that there was no intention to kill. Reliance was placed on the judgments rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Raja @ Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan,1984 CrLR 1984 and Jani Devi (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Harish Kumar,2012 4 CrLR 2119 to substantiate the argument that in case the injuries are simple, no offence under Sec. 307 IPC can be said to be made out. It was further argued that the trial court did not record any finding that the petitioners were likely to be convicted on the basis of the evidence. No evidence was gone into.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor however, has submitted that prima facie case has to be seen for framing of charge. Hence, there was no ground to interfere in the order framing charge. Heard.