MUKESH & ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.06.2008 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track No.2), Sikar Camp, Srimadhopur whereby the learned Judge has charged the petitioners for offences under 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the present case Om Prakash and Patashi are the two most injured persons. Om Prakash has sustained an incised wound on the occipital bone by a sharp edged weapon which has been declared as a simple injury in the x-ray examination. Similarly, Smt. Patashi has suffered incised wound on the right partial bone. According to the x-ray report, the said injury is also simple in nature. The other injured persons namely, Gopal, Chauthmal and Tara have all suffered simple injuries on their bodies. Looking to the nature of the injuries suffered by the injured persons, no offence under Section 307 is made out. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in framing the charge for offence under Sections 307 or 307/34 IPC. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the allegations against the petitioners are that they entered the house of the complainant party, with sharp edged weapons. They inflicted injuries on the head of Om Prakash and Smt. Patashi. Thus, their intention to cause death is writ large in the present case. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in framing the charge for offences under Sections 307 or 307/34 IPC. Hence, she has supported the impugned judgment. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. 5. A bare perusal of the injury reports and the x-ray reports clearly reveal that both Om Prakash and Patashi have suffered simple injuries, although the said injuries were allegedly caused by sharp edged weapon. However, considering the fact that the injuries are "simple in nature", no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Therefore, the order dated 09.06.2008 is quashed and set aside to the limited extent that the charge for offences under Section 307 or 307/34 IPC is set aside. However, the learned trial Court shall be free to reframe the charge for any other offence after re-assessing the evidence which is already before the Court. 6. With these observations, this petition is partly allowed. Revision partly allowed.