BADHO DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dtd. 21/8/2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar in Session Case No.11/2020 whereby the learned trial court while framing charge against the respondents No.2 to 4 for offence under Ss. 336, 427, 325, 323, 504/34 IPC, discharges them from offence under Sec. 308 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of parcha bayan of complainant/petitioner, FIR No.538/2018 was registered against the respondents No.2 to 4 to the effect that the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 illegally entered in her house and assaulted her. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 for offence under Ss. 308, 336, 427, 325, 504/34 IPC. Thereafter, learned trial court after hearing arguments on charge, framed the charges against the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 for offence under Ss. 336, 427, 325, 323, 504/34 IPC, however, discharged them from offence under Sec. 308 IPC. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court has committed grave error in law and facts while discharging the accused-respondents from the offence under Sec. 308 IPC despite the fact that prima facie there is ample evidence available against them. Counsel submits that as many as five persons were got injured in the incident. The petitioner/complainant received total nine injuries and injury No.5 was on her left forearm, which is classified as grievous in nature and injury No.1 is on frontal & parietal region of scalp. Though the said injury has been classified as simple in nature, but the same was caused on vital part of the body of the complainant. Counsel further submits that the other injured persons namely Mangilal received two injuries, Anil Kumar received one injury, Nawabdeen received two injuries and Suresh received three injuries. Injury No.2 sustained by the injured Suresh is on his head. It is contended that after thorough investigation, Police filed challan against the accused-respondents for offence under Sec. 308 IPC apart from other offences, but the learned trial court without assigning any cogent reason discharged the accused-respondents from offence under Sec. 308 IPC. Thus, the impugned order is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside to the extent of discharging the accused-respondents from offence under Sec. 308 IPC.