PURAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under Sec. 397 r/w Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dtd. 7/7/2022 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge No.1, Bandikui, District Dausa in Sessions Case No.14/2022 whereby an order framing charge has been passed against the petitioners under Ss. 147, 323, 323 r/w 149, 341, 341 r/w 149, 504, 304, 304/149 in alternative 302 r/w 302/149 of the IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant and the petitioners are relatives and the FIR came to be lodged over a sudden scuffle which ensued over raising a boundary over an agricultural field. The mother of the complainant died during the scuffle that arose between the parties and an FIR was lodged against the petitioners under Ss. 143, 323, 341 and 302 IPC. The investigating agency filed the charge sheet against the petitioners under Sec. 143, 323, 341, 304 and 504 while dropping charges under Sec. 302 IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Ss. 147, 323, 323/149, 341, 341/149, 504, 304, 304/149 in alternative 302 and 302/149 of IPC. It is submitted that the impugned order is neither legally sustainable in the eyes of law nor does it take into account the facts of the present case. The deceased was not present at the scene and she died a natural death, however, with a view to entangle the petitioners in a criminal case, a false story was cooked up by the complainant party. The learned Court below has not applied its mind to see whether the elements essential to constitute the alleged offences are present or not in the charge sheet filed by the prosecution. He, thus, submits that neither an offence is made out under Sec. 302 nor under Sec. 304 IPC in these cases because of the absence of the requisite ingredients. Framing of charge is different than booking an accused for commission of an offence.

(3.) Learned public prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that in order to frame a charge against an accused, the trial court needs to see whether a prima facie case is made out against the said accused or not and there is no need of detailed or meticulous appreciation of material available on record at the stage of framing of charge.