1 S.B. Crl.Revision No. 396/08 S.B. Crl. Revision No. 34/09 N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSATHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 396/2008 (SURENDRA SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE & ANR) S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 34/09 (MAHENDRA PEDIWAL VS. STATE & ANR.) Date : 28.09.2010 HON'BLE MR. C.M. TOTLA, J. Mr. B.S. Rathore for the petitioner. Smt. Chandralekha, P.P. Mr. Rakesh Matoria for the respondent. Mr. Dhirendra Singh ] BY THE COURT = = = = Both revision are in relation to order dated 31.03.09 passed in Sessions Case No. 13/04 in the court of Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar. The order direct framing of charge against the petitioner for offence of Section 120B and R/2 for the offence of Ss 452, 326, 120 B IPC and also 3/25 Arms Act against R. Revision No. 396/08 by accused requests quashing of charge and discharge. Revision No. 34/09 of complainant, requests framing of charge against R for the offence of Section 307/34 IPC. Heard learned counsel and also learned Public Prosecutor. The facts briefly stated, accordingly to prosecution, appear to be that in night of 23-24 at 12:40 one Shri M injured and under treatment in hospital stated and informed that for 2-3 days he receiving telephone calls from a person of media so he (M) gave him 2 S.B. Crl.Revision No. 396/08 S.B. Crl. Revision No. 34/09 meeting time of morning of 22nd who then insisted for late evening time, so asked to come in evening, at 8:45 PM when complainant M was in house with family members and outer bell attended by wife who was asked by a person that he to see complainant, therefore, as M went out a person telling him to be a representative of media news somewhat critically spoke of he attempting to see Assembly member (named) could not and M (complainant) in his statement describing nature and some talks stated that suddenly that man taking pistol out shot at him and a person accompanied him whose name was described to be Ramchandra. Also narrated in his statement, FIR is of nephew Dr. Aditya and other family members caught a person running to escape and one other apprehended and got caught by gathered persons. Narrated that 4-5 days earlier, petitioner S publicaly threatened him of a lesson which appeared in newspapers. In course of investigation, from the possession of Ramchandra, seized a pistol with some cartridges and from other recovered were fire arms etc. From possession of accused R was recovered a cellular phone, revolver and cartridge. Motorcycle allegedly using which person tried to escape is alleged to have been found with false number plate. Also obtained are details of telephone calls between numbers, time, date etc and material showing stay at hotel etc. .Chargesheet was submitted for offence of Section 307, 326, 452 IPC and also Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner Surendra Singh strenuously contended that against Surendra Singh no iota of evidence, no material disclosing any conspiracy. In statement under Section 164 3 S.B. Crl.Revision No. 396/08 S.B. Crl. Revision No. 34/09 Cr.P.C said witness K mentions obtaining cellular apparatus from secretary of petitioner and even then same cannot incriminate the petitioner - telephone calls whatever were in between eve alleged were between p.a and one B and such call details is not evidence in the eye of law – no recovery made from the petitioner- definitely not is any recovery connecting petitioner. Strenuously urged that only because in vague & general terms petitioner is named in FIR, the same cannot be ground for framing charge and for any ill will or any said news appearing in the news cannot be basis for charge which again not proved and even not can be admissible. Cited are 2000 II AD (Delhi) 473 Chandraswami and K.N Aggarwal Vs. CBI. Learned counsel for the complainant taking Court through the impugned order, statement recorded during investigation and other material argued that conspiracy can be based only on link and chain of circumstances. For the necessary ingredients of offence for which charged are, the witnesses including one examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. speak of the incident that evidence of hotel owner and others on related events. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that for Ram Ratan directly is attributed exhortion and also that he was possessing fire arm and therefore, he ought to be charged for the offence of Section 307 IPC. For argument cited is AIR 1995 SC 1066 E.K. Chandrasenan Vs. State of Kerala and 1978 Cr.L.J 1474 Rauf Vs. State of U.P. For respondent accused R argued that no specific overt act is attributed to him and at best he is said to be present at the time of 4 S.B. Crl.Revision No. 396/08 S.B. Crl. Revision No. 34/09 incident and taking best for prosecution, he only and merely was present but not attributed is inflicting of any injury with any overt act to him. And when causing of injury by fire arm is not attributed to Ram Ratan, not warranted is any order for charging for the offence of Section 307 IPC. Considered arguments, had a careful look at the record and order impugned. In the First Information Report by injured described is nature and some details of talks which allegedly followed between the petitioner and one who came to see him. Also are described is oral. A named person was caught hold allegedly at the spot and another person named Ajay also apprehended and caught following occurrence. In specific words is mentioned alleged threat particularly given which allegedly appeared in newspapers - attributing it to S. Injured sustained fire arm wounds.In addition to statements of some persons recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C one witness is examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C who also state that JP gave him cellular apparatus and that he on asking went to house of S where he asked to take two persons to house of complainant (injured) but he refused. Material collected include where, between numbers, and when the telephone calls were made and staying at hotel etc. Petitioner is charged for the offence of Section 120B. For such acts, constituting such an offence, direct evidence always cannot be. While framing charge, prima facie is to be seen whether or not sufficient grounds to proceed for the offences are. Here, on the material and for reasons mentioned 5 S.B. Crl.Revision No. 396/08 S.B. Crl. Revision No. 34/09 above, argument that no material for framing charge cannot be sustainable. For Ram Ratan material collected includes ownership of vehicles alleged on which they allegedly attempted to escape and exhibition of false number plates. Therefore, both revisions failing are rejected. Learned trial court looking to earlier orders and otherwise also to expedite the trial.It is made clear that observations above are solely for and in context of deciding this revision with no other affect on any proceedings. (C.M. TOTLA), J. bj