S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Gopal Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 20/2010 Date of Order : 06.12.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. Pradeep Shah for the petitioners Ms. Chandralekha – Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT By this revision petition, petitioner Gopal Singh S/o Manohar Singh has challenged the order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 268/2009, whereby the learned trial court has framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC alongwith charges for offence under Section 147, 148, 341, 342 read with Section 149 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Banshilal submitted a written report to the Station House Page 1 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/2010 Officer, Police Station Bhupalpura, Udaipur stating inter alia that the petitioner alongwith 6-7 persons came to Oriental Palace where the complainant alongwith Bharat Singh and Shaitan Singh were standing and the petitioner inflicted a sword injury on the person of Shaitan Singh which landed on his hand. Thereafter all the accused fled away. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a criminal case was registered at the Police Station Bhupalpura and the investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, petitioner-accused was arrested and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 307 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) No. 2, Udaipur City (South). The learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur and ultimately the case was transferred for trial to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur. The learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2009 framed charges against petitioners for the offence under Section 147, 148, 341, 342/149, 307/149 IPC. The petitioners being aggrieved of the aforesaid order framing charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 Page 2 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/2010 against him, has preferred this revision petition praying inter alia that he may be discharged from the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no ground to frame the charge against the petitioner under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC as the injury sustained by injured Shaitan Singh is not grievous or dangerous to life. He further contended that similarly situated co-accused Manohar Singh has been discharged from the charge of offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and the case of the petitioner is not different from that of co-accused Manohar Singh. He further argued that the learned trial court without assigning any reason, ordered to frame the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further contended that at this stage, the documents submitted with the charge- sheet after investigation may require to be appreciated by this court. He relied upon the following authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his contentions :- (i)Dilawar Balu Kurane Versus State of Maharashtra, 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 310 (ii)State of Maharashtra & Ors. Versus Som Nath Thapa & Ors., 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 820 (iii)State of Karnataka Versus L. Muniswamy & Ors., AIR 1977 Page 3 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/2010 Supreme Court 1489 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor contended that while framing the charge against the petitioners, the learned trial court appreciated the fact that as per the First Information Report, accused Gopal Singh was armed with deadly weapon sword and injured Shaitan Singh sustained injury as incised wound on the left forearm and he saved himself from the fatal blow by raising his hands, thus, there was attempt to commit the culpable homicide, therefore, the order of the learned trial court does not require any interference. I have considered the rivals submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The facts of the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case. Under Section 397 and 401 IPC togather it is evident that the High Court can interfere in all cases of incorrectness, illegality or impropriety of any finding, sentence or order or irregularity of any procedure of the inferior courts by taking such measures or passing such orders as could be Page 4 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/2010 passed by an appellate court. The object of revisional jurisdiction is to confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction and the idea is to correct miscarriage of justice which may arise from various causes. Thus, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases. The learned trial court is not supposed to scrutinize the evidence meticulously at the stage of the framing of the charge. A grave suspicion is sufficient for framing the charge and required standard of proof is not as onerous as it is at the stage of judgment. The conjoint reading of the First Information Report, statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the medical evidence in the case in hand does not leave any doubt about sufficiency of material available on record for framing of the charges as ordered by the learned trial court. At the stage of framing of the charges, the court need not weigh the evidence collected by the prosecution. The finding of the trial court may be revised only if there has been an error in framing of charge. It is not just possible for the revisional court to hold that the prosecution is false, frivolous or vexatious or is an apparent abuse of the Page 5 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/2010 process of law. When the trial court has affirmed the opinion that on material the accused has committed an offence, the revisional powers cannot be exercised to quash the charge. Even otherwise the scope of revision is much limited than that of appeal because a revisional court can interfere only if the trial court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in it or has committed grave irregularity calling for interference. Simply because some other view is also possible, a revisional court shall not substitute the order of the subordinate court with its own view and order. Viewed from any angle, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. In the net result, this revision petition filed by petitioner Gopal Singh S/o Manohar Singh against the order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 268/2009 is dismissed at the admission stage itself. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J. Pramod Page 6 of 6