SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under Section 397(401) Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.01.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Kota(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court ') in Session Case No. 141/2011, whereby charges have been framed against the accused-petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 452/34 IPC and under Section 4/25 Arms Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused-petitioners vehemently contended that order passed by the Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures. If all evidence is taken together, no case is made out against the accused-petitioners. He further submitted that impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is patently illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law as also the material available on record. Learned Court below has seriously erred in passing the impugned order because there was no legal evidence to connect the accused-petitioners with the alleged crime. He further submitted that the order framing a charge effects a person 's liberty substantially and, therefore, it is the duty of the Court to consider judiciously whether the material warrants framing of charges or not and it cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution or the complainant that the accused be asked to face the trial. Impugned order is not reasoned and speaking order and thus, not sustainable in the eyes of law. The injuries found against all the persons are simple in nature and as such no case for offence under Section 308 IPC is made out against the accused-petitioners. The allegations levelled by the complainant are prima facie not correct, which clearly shows that the injuries were also caused by blunt weapons. As per allegations, there were only sharp edged weapons. However, all the injuries are simple in nature and no case for offence under Section 308 IPC is made out. The doctor has not opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death which would be amount to culpable homicide. Learned Trial Court has not considered the aspect that in order to frame the charges, the requirement is to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existing of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences. The injuries sustained by injured persons are simple in nature and not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. So, offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out in this case. So, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners prayed that instant revision petition may be allowed, impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court may be quashed and set aside and the accused-petitioners may be discharged. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions delivered by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the cases of Onkar Nath Mishra and Others Vs. State(NCT of Delhi) And Another, (2008) 2 SCC 561 and Bishan Singh and Anr. Vs. The State, AIR 2008 SC 131.