1 KALU RAM vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN S.B.Cri. Revision Petition No.309/2009 Date of Order : 18.03.09 HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J. Mr.M.K.Garg for the petitioner/s. Mr.Panney Singh , Public Prosecutor. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 16.01.09 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Bikaner, by which charges against the petitioner under sections 341 307, 326, 324, 323, 394, 397 read with section 34 IPC were framed. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.11.08 Chhotu Lal gave a written report to the Police Station, Nayashar alleging there in that on 16.11.08 when he came out from his house to search his son Ramdev then he saw that the accused persons i.e. Bajrang Lal and the present petitioner Kalu Ram were beating his son. He further stated in his report that thereafter, they took away motor cycle and mobile phone 2 of his son and ran away. It is also alleged in the report that Bajrang Lal was having sword and Kalu Ram was having lathi in their hands. On the basis of this report , a case vide FIR No. 303/08 under sections 341 307, 324, 323, 384 IPC was registered against accused persons and investigation started. During investigation offences under sections 326, 324 IPC were added and in place of section 384 IPC, the offence under section 394 and 397 IPC was substituted and further offence under section 4/25 of the Arms Act was also added against Bajrang Lal . After completion of the investigation, case was challaned under sections 341, 307, 326, 324, 394, 397 and 34 IPC and under section 4/24 of Arms Act against both the accused in the court and thereafter case was committed to the concerned Sessions Judge, from where the case was transferred to the court of Addl.District Judge( Fast Track) No.1 Bikaner where, after hearing both the parties, charges were framed under above mentioned sections. Being aggrieved by the said order , the present revision petition has been filed. Notice of this petition was given to respondent and arguments were heard. 3 During the course of arguments ,learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the present petitioner has falsely been impleaded in this case . There was no material to frame charge against the accused petitioner. The learned trail court, without appreciating the evidence and considering the material available on record, wrongly has framed charges against the accused, they are not sustainable. It is stated that the accused petitioner was having lathi in his hand he took part in beating but from the perusal of the injury report, not a single injury has been caused by blunt weapon. Thus, the involvement of the petitioner became false. It was further submitted that in this case, the doctor has not opined that any injury sustained by the injured was dangerous to life. Therefore, the charge of section 307 IPC is not sustainable at all. On the basis of aforesaid submission, a prayer was made to discharge the accused petitioner and the revision may be allowed. On the contrary , learned Public Prosecutor refuted the contention and submitted that in this case, the injured Ramdev as well as his father, the first informant, have specifically 4 stated the presence of accused petitioner, having lathi in his hand . They have further stated that he took participation in the commission of crime . Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that at the stage of charge , minute analysis of fact was not necessary but from the available record the relevant witnesses have stated that with an intent to kill ,injuries were caused to Ramdev. The injured has suffered as many as 7 injuries and out of that two are on the vital part, one is on the chest. The co-accused was having sword, a dangerous weapon in his hand and the petitioner was with him having lathi. Thus the trial court has rightly framed the charges, there is no irregularity in the order , therefore, revision may be dismissed and the order may be maintained. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the challan papers submitted by the petitioner. The initiation of this case has been made by the report of Chhotu Lal, father of the injured, in which he has specifically stated that both the accused, including petitioner, were beating his son. Further, during investigation the complainant informant has stated accused Bajrang Lal was having sword and petitioner was 5 having lathi in his hand. The injured has stated that the accused persons gave beating to him. He sustained several injuries that is corroborated by injury report. He has further stated that on 14.1108 the accused persons Bajrang Lal and Kalu Ram met him in the market and threatened him to kill him. Thereafter, on 16.11.08 they gave beating. He also stated that Bajrang Lal was having sword and the petitioner Kalu Ram was having lathi, that has been recovered at his instance and on the information given under section 27 Evidence Act. I have also perused the injury report, it is revealed that out of the 7 injuries two are on the vital parts, one is on chest and other is on nose. At the stage of framing charge intention of assailer is to be seen and not the result of the injuries. Taking into consideration the statement of the injured, as well as other witnesses, the role assigned to petitioner and the injuries sustained by the injured, the contentions placed by the petitioner's side are not tenable. I see no illegality or irregularity in the order of charge. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is hereby dismissed and order of charge is maintained. 6 (MANAK MOHTA), J. l.george