BHARTIRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a case of murder of one Boraram and injuries sustained by Babu Ram and Yashpal Singh @ Galad, after investigation charge-sheet against the ten petitioners was filed When the accused were committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur the learned Judge charge-sheeted all the petitioners for the offences under section 302, 302 read with 149 I. P. C. and 147 I. P. C. for performing an unlawful assembly and committing the murder of Boraram Charge for the offence u/s. 323 I. P. C. was also framed against Bhartiram for the injuries caused to Babu Ram and Satyanarayan & Satya Prakash for the injuries caused to Yashpal Singh @ Galad. The remaining petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offence under sections 323 read with 149 I. P. C. for the simple injuries caused to Babu Ram and Yashpal Singh. The order dated November 3, 1983 passed after hearing the arguments for framing the charge caused grievance to the petitioners.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the learned Judge has not applied mind as to which offence was made out against which of the accused and has framed common charges against them all. That, the postmortem examinations report is specific on the point that the cause of death was head injuries. That, only three persons were responsible for the four head injuries and as such there cannot be any justification for charge-sheeting all the petitioners for the offence u/s. 302 I. P. C. On the same analogy, the learned counsel stressed that the charge u/s. 302 read with 149 I P. C. should also not have been framed. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to certain authorities. None of the case cited by the learned counsel are applicable to the point for the reasons which I would enumerate at appropriate place.

(3.) IN the case of Molu vs. State of Haryana (4) and Ghanshyam vs. The State of Rajasthan (5) the point for decision was whether in a case where the death of the victim was due to cumulative effect of the injuries sustained by him, the case may fall within the ambit of definition of murder. The weapon used, the nature of the injuries and parts effected were the factors taken into consideration while forming an opinion that the case did not travel beyond the ambit of Sec 304 I. P. C.