DHARMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.c. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 5/12/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No. 30/2022 whereby the learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Ss. 323, 325, 307 and 336 IPC.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific allegation of the prosecution is that the present petitioner ran over the Bolero Camper upon the complainant/respondent No. 2 and due to which, the complainant sustained chest injuries apart from other injuries on his body. Counsel referenced the X-ray report, which indicates that the complainant sustained fractures of 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs of right side as well as fractures of 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs of right side. These injuries have been classified as grievous in nature, however, no crushed injuries has been mentioned in the injury report of the complainant. Counsel further referred to "Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology", which states that "the ribs that are most frequently fractured are the middle ones, viz. The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eights as they are most prominent and fixed at both ends. The upper ribs are not usually fractured unless very great force is used." Thus, as per the aforesaid medical jurisprudence, the ribs injuries sustained by the complainant do not amount to injuries that would be deemed to be dangerous to life. To buttress his contention, Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Champa Lal Dhakar Vs. Nawal Singh Rajput & Ors., [(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 29]. Hence, offence under Sec. 307 IPC is not made out against the petitioner. Nevertheless, the Trial Court has framed the charge for offence under Sec. 307 IPC. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order to the extent of framing charge for offence under Sec. 307 IPC against the petitioner being per se illegal may be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Learned AAG and learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer made by the Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that looking to the injury report as well as X-ray report, learned Trial Court has justifiably framed the charge for offence under Sec. 307 IPC against the petitioner. Further, at the time of framing charge, meticulous examination of evidence is not necessary. The impugned order of framing charge is perfectly justified and requires no interference from this Court.