GHANSHYAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision, the petitioners herein have approached this Court to challenge the order dated 27.9.2016 passed by the learned ASJ No.4, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.357/2016 whereby, the trial court directed framing of charges against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 306 and 448 I.P.C.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioners and the family of the deceased Radhakishan live as neighbours in Mahamandir Area of Jodhpur. It appears that minor squabbles were going on between the parties and some cases had also been instituted between them. Radhakishan consumed some poisonous substance on 26.3.2014 upon which he was admitted in a hospital. However, he did not respond to treatment and passed away on 30.3.2014. Shri Ghanshyam father of the deceased lodged a report at the P.S. Mahamandir alleging inter-alia that the petitioners herein had harassed and humiliated the family members of the complainant in the night intervening 25.3.2014 and 26.3.2014 and had threatened that if the complainant did not withdraw the criminal case which had been instituted for molestation of Saroj, then Radhakishan would be implicated in a false case of rape and he and his sister would be maligned in the society. Owing to this threat, Radhakishan became highly perturbed and consumed some poisonous substance as a result whereof, he became unconscious and had to be admitted to the hospital where he passed away. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No.132/2014 was registered at the Police Station Mahamandir and investigation commenced. Upon conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the present petitioners for the above offences. The accused petitioners contested the charges before the trial court by advancing oral arguments but the trial court discarded the contentions and proceeded to frame charges against them as above. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Shri J.S.Choudhary learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Tarun Dhaka Advocate vehemently urged that there is hardly any material worth the name on the record of the case to justify framing of charges against the petitioners for above offences. He urged that the F.I.R. was lodged after significant delay of 5 days. Even if the allegations set out in statements of the complainant and other witnesses are accepted as true on the face value, the essential elements of instigation or abetment are totally lacking from the case so as to justify the order framing charges. He urged that the trial court did not even advert to the statement of the deceased himself recorded by the official of the P.S.Mahamandir while he was admitted in the hospital. In the said statement, the deceased clearly stated that he was suffering from stomach ache and inadvertently consumed copper sulphate which was lying in the house mistaking it to be medicine. He urged that had the trial court applied its mind to the said statement, then there was no occasion to frame charges against the petitioners. He thus craved for acceptance of the revision and urged that the impugned order should be set aside.