HARIVALLABH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, petitioner has challenged order dated 3rd of February, 2018 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.12/2015 framing charge against him for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to this revision petition are that respondent-complainant submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, attributing offence of murder and certain other offences under the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'Act of 1989') against Balu Gurjar and Pritesh @ Pintu, and in the FIR there was no whisper much less any allegation of threatening the deceased Anil against petitioner. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet for offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of of the Act of 1989 against petitioner and two others before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Nathdwara and subsequently the case was committed to learned trial Court.

(3.) Learned trial Court, after hearing arguments on charge, framed charge under Section 306 IPC against accused persons including petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel that learned trial Court has not at all cared to examine the material available on record for framing charge under Section 306 IPC against petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the FIR itself was lodged after a lapse of one month, wherein name of the petitioner was not mentioned and it is only during investigation, solely on the basis of some embellished version of the witnesses, he is sought to be implicated. It is also argued by learned counsel that while framing charge, Court is required to apply its mind on the basis of material available on record and before proceeding to frame charge, must record its prima facie satisfaction that offence is made out against accused. Further elaborating his submission, it is contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is conspicuously silent on this issue, and therefore, same cannot be sustained.