ADITI MITTAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition is preferred on behalf of petitioner-accused aggrieved from order of charge dtd. 7/8/2023, in Sessions Case No. 275/2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Kota.

(2.) Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is an innocent person and she was not named in FIR. He also submitted that no one has named present petitioner for conspiracy or abatement of offence committed by Sahil @ Naru, Afzal @ Shani and Majid. He also submits that in order to invoke charge under Sec. 307 IPC, it is necessary that the injuries must be sufficient to cause death but herein, no record was available to justify charge under Sec. 307 IPC. He also referred the material placed on record and submitted that even from statement of Nemichand, Rakesh and Mayank involvement of present petitioner was not established. He also referred the findings, particularly CDR detail of present petitioner and submitted that present petitioner was not having any connection with any of other co-accused, therefore, framing her for conspiracy is contrary to record. He further relied upon judgment in case of Shashikant Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal Number 3663/2003) (Supreme Court) and Suresh @ Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 1298-1299/1998) (Supreme Court). He further referred and relied upon judgment of a coordinate bench in case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition number 265/2023 and submitted that the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy were not available on record.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for complainant. Learned Counsel for complainant submitted that present petitioner is a close relative of injured and to grab properties of injured, a conspiracy was hatched by her with co-accused Imran @ Parchi and injured were assaulted.