LOKENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. Revision Petition has been preferred against order dt. 23-2-1999 of the Special Judge (Communal Riots Man Singh Murder Case) Jaipur whereby the petitioner has been charged for offence under Ss. 447, 325/34, 307 and 326, IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief, as unfolded in FIR lodged on 11-10-96 at Police Station Bajaj Nagar (Jaipur) by Dr. Mahesh Chandra Tiwari, is that on 10-10-96 at about 11-15 p.m. the informant along with his wife and two daughters when saw outside their house, found his neighbour Balbir Singh and his son Billu hurling abuses to them and while they asked not be abuse, but Balbir duly armed with Bamboo (stick) started beating them and meanwhile son of Balbir viz. petitioner thrusted knife into right side of stomach of his wife (informant's), besides beating with lathis on her head and so also his head. It has been stated in the report that at the time of scuffle, his tenant Manish, Smt. Kusum Jain and Pappu besides other neighbour witnessed the incident of beating at the instance of Balbir and his son and they tried to catch hold of Billu but he fled away in a gypsy. Thereupon, injured Smt. Saroj wife of informant Dr. M.C. Tewari was taken to SMS Hospital for treatment. Upon aforesaid report the police registered crime and started investigation. After usual investigation the police filed challan against the present petitioner and his father Balbir. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and on the basis of the evidence and material on the case diary placed before it, took prima facie view that the petitioner (accused) be charged for commission of offence under Ss. 447, 325/34, 307 and 326, IPC, vide his order dt. 23-2-99. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Shri Samander Singh, learned counel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged incident and the trial Court has committed an error in not appreciating the fact that in the FIR the petitioner is not named but one Billu who is resident of neighbourhood of the informant, has been arrayed as an accused. Shri Singh contended that the petitioner was never called nor known in the vicinity as Billu but is always known and called by name of Lokendra Pal Singh and so, he has falsely been implicated in the case due to some animosity with the complainant who made collusion with the police and therefore the police has not made efforts to trace out actual culprit named as Billu. Shri Singh further contended that the complainant being doctor has managed to get FIR lodged and then issued injury report of grievous nature so as to book the accused in a case of serious offence whereas there was no injury on the person of the injured which could have been of grievous nature or dangerous or caused death in the ordinary course of nature, whereas the allegations in the FIR are wholly untrustworthy and do not prima facie