BHAJANA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. petitioners have assailed the order dated 28th April, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.1, Bikaner, whereby the learned trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 307, 307/149, 332, 332/149, 353, 353/149, 148 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charges, petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also carefully gone through the order impugned and perused the challan papers.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners No.7 Smt. Imarati, No.8 Smt. Jamuna Devi and No.9 Smt.Roshani, these three ladies have neither been named in the FIR nor in the statement of any of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the Police under Cinasmuch as, even the three injured witnesses namely Satish Kumar, Suraja Ram and Sona Ram have also not named them as assailants and, therefore, as against these three ladies even the prosecution case remains uncontroverted, no offence whatsoever has been made out. It is further contended that the offence under Sections 307, 307/149 IPC is not made out from the material placed on record by the police after investigation. He has invited my attention to the injuries suffered by the injured Satish Kumar, Suraja Ram and Sona Ram. The injuries are simple in nature by blunt object on non-vital parts and, therefore, counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence to the effect that the injuries were caused with the intention or the knowledge or under such circumstances that by that act if death cause, they would be guilty of murder.