AMANVEER @ AMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 13/12/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 37/2017 whereby the leaned Judge has ordered to frame charges for the offences under Ss. 304, 279 and 337 of the IPC against the petitioner.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, the necessary facts for the disposal of the case are that on 16/5/2017 at about 4.55 p.m. Surendra Kumar filed a written report to SHO, P.S. Hanumangarh Town alleging inter alia that at about 7.0/8/0 p.m. when he, Jenaram and Rajkumar were going from National Highway to Ramdev Temple then a Swift Desire Car bearing registration No. PB60A-6713, which was driven by Aman rashly and negligently hit Rajkumar and Jenaram and he was on the other side resulting which Jenaram fell down on road and Rajkumar stuck down on the bonnet of the car was dragged by the driver for almost one and half kilometers away whereafter near the Uttam Palace, his body was taken out under the car resulting which his leg was cut and he succumbed to the injuries. Jena Ram complained that he was having pain on his right shoulder and some bruises were found on his left thigh. Upon the said complaint, the said FIR has been registered for the offences under Ss. 304, 279 and 337 of the IPC. After investigation, offence was found proved against the petitioner and charge sheet was filed in the Court concerned. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has erred in passing the order impugned and the charge under Sec. 304 IPC has wrongly been framed against the petitioner as before the incident they were unknown to each other and there was no previous animosity between the petitioner and the deceased Rajkumar. He further states that as per medical report, petitioner was not found drunk at the time of alleged incident and the accident took place due to error of judgment; he did not have any knowledge that Rajkumar was stuck under the car and thus, his case would fall under Sec. 304-A of the IPC instead of under Sec. 304 IPC. Lastly, it is prayed that order framing charges against the petitioner to the extent of the offence under Sec. 304 IPC may be quashed and set aside.