KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioners which are directed against the order dt. 25/11/2017 whereby the charge for the offence under Secs. 147, 148, 332, 353, 336, 307, 307/149, 427 IPC and under Sec. 3 of PDPP Act have been framed against the petitioners.

(2.) During course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer only to the extent of the offence under Sec. 307 IPC. Learned counsel submits that the MLR's enclosed with the challan papers are pertaining to Harshwardhan, Surendar Singh, Kishan Lal, Amarpal and Parmal Singh. The injuries reported therein are simple in nature and are caused by blunt weapons except injury sustained by Parmal Singh for which the x-ray examination was advised. Counsel further submits that no x-ray report has been annexed with the charge-sheet. In absence of this report, the injury sustained by Parmal Singh also appears to be simple in nature. In view of above, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no basis on which the charge for the offence under Sec. 307 IPC can be framed.

(3.) In view of the submissions made above learned Public Prosecutor was given the opportunity to inquire about the fact whether x-ray report with regard to injury of Parmal Singh was filed before the trial Court or not. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the report received from SHO, P.S. Khushkhera, District Alwar wherein it has been stated that no such x-ray report was found enclosed in the concerned record.