RAMDHAN AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-petitioners have preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge order dated 29th of September, 2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer framing charge against them for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 323/149, 336, 336/149, 307, 307/149 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that pursuant to C.R. Case No.19/2015 of Police Station Lathi (Jaisalmer), after investigation police submitted charge-sheet against petitioners for aforesaid offences before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and later on, while resorting to Section 209 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court and eventually same was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court, upon registering Sessions Case No.158/2016, framed charges against the petitioners for aforesaid offences.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned trial Court, while framing charge against petitioners for offence under Section 307 IPC, has not at all examined the requisite material including injury report of Bhanwarlal (injured), and therefore, impugned order is per se erroneous and not sustainable. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that as per injury report of Bhanwarlal all the injuries are simple in nature, allegedly caused by a blunt weapon, and therefore sans visible sign of any bony injury, prima facie, charge under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that looking to the nature of injuries suffered by injured Bhanwarlal and number of alleged assailants (petitioners), their intention and knowledge to cause any injury or injuries dangerous to life is per se not discernible. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that charge is a foundation of a criminal trial but learned trial Court has not at all cared to examine the prima facie evidence and other available material on record while passing the impugned order. It is in that background, learned Senior Counsel has contended that correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned order is under serious cloud, and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.