S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 835/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Lal Singh & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 835/2010 Date of Order : 06.12.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. Pradeep Shah for the petitioners Mr. Anil Upadhyay – Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT By this revision petition, petitioners Lal Singh S/o Devi Singh, Bhagwan Singh @ Bhagu Singh S/o Govind Singh, Gaju Singh @ Gajendra Singh S/o Jagmal Singh, Jeetu Singh S/o Govind Singh, Padam Singh S/o Jethu Singh @ Jethmal Singh, Prem Singh S/o Jethu Singh @ Jethmal Singh, Mahendra Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Hari Singh S/o Govind Singh, Devi Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, Mohan Singh S/o Magh Singh, Kalyan Singh S/o Loon Singh and Pep Singh S/o Devi Singh have challenged the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 41/2010 Page 1 of 7 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 835/2010 (17/2009), whereby the learned trial court has framed charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC alongwith charges for other offences. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the oral statement of complainant Mukhram dated 21.08.2008, police registered a criminal case under Section 307, 365, 341, 323, 143 IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, petitioners-accused were arrested and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against them for the offence under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sardar Shahar, District Churu. The offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Churu and ultimately the case was transferred for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Churu. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 framed charges against petitioners Gaju Singh, Jeetu Singh and Mahendra Singh for the offence under Section 307, 341, 323, 324, 325, 365, 368, Page 2 of 7 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 835/2010 147, 148, 149 IPC and against petitioners Lal Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Pradam Singh, Prem Singh, Hari Singh, Devi Singh, Mohan Singh, Kalyan Singh and Pep Singh, charges were framed under Section 307, 341, 323, 324, 325, 147, 148, 149 IPC. The petitioners being aggrieved of the aforesaid order framing charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 against each of them, have preferred this revision petition praying inter alia that they may be discharged from the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no ground to frame the charge against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC as none of the injuries sustained by injured Dhanna Ram, Teeju Devi, Mukhram and Gopiram were grievous in nature and they have not sustained any injury on the vital part of the body. 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- petitioners further contended that at this stage, the documents submitted with the charge-sheet after Page 3 of 7 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 835/2010 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 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 the FIR disclosed the fact that the petitioners were armed with deadly weapons like Barchi and Lathis and that injured Mukhram sustained an incised wound on the right side of pinna by a sharp object and he further sustained a fracture of the bone of the right wrist, 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 Page 4 of 7 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 835/2010 the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 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 Page 5 of 7 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 835/2010 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 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. Page 6 of 7 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 835/2010 In the net result, this revision petition filed by petitioners against the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 41/2010 (17/2009) is dismissed at the admission stage itself. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J. Pramod Page 7 of 7