BHIKHARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 1/12/2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 112/2021 whereby, charges have been framed against the petitioners for offence under Ss. 341, 323, 343, 365, 394/34, 341/120b, 323/120b, 365/120b, 366/120B, 394/120B IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Chunni Devi W/o Lala Ram filed a written report to the effect that the accused persons forcibly entered into her house and kidnapped her sister's daughter Manisha and assaulted her. After due investigation, chargesheet came to be filed by the police and case was committed to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the learned trial court vide impugned order dtd. 1/12/2023 framed charges for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the extent of framing of charge for offence under Sec. 394/34 IPC and it is argued that offence under Sec. 394 IPC i.e. voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. It is submitted that in the FIR so also in the statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C, there is no allegation on behalf of complainant for stealing any ornament and it is only in the statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. the complainant has alleged that the accused took away locket from her and therefore, the trial court framed the charge under Sec. 394/34 IPC. He placed reliance on judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nosad Khan @ Sonu Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018(1) CJ (Cri) (Raj.) 236. Therefore, the impugned order framing charges against the petitioners is liable to be set aside.