IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT GOKUL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJ. S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.225 of 2009 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated January 21, 2009 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No.116 of 2008 whereby charges were framed against the accused petitioners for offence under sections 341, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34, 307 and 307/34 IPC. Date of Order : Feb. 17, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Timan Singh for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners, against the order dated January 21, 2009 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No.116 of 2008 whereby charges were framed against the accused petitioners for offence under sections 341, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34, 307 and 307/34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the report of Devlal Gurjar FIR No. 215 of 2008 was registered at Plice Station Chauth Ka Barwada against the accused petitioners. It was given out in the report that while he was passing through the field of Mukesh and Gokul, Gokul gave lathi blow on his head on account of which he fell down. Other persons present there also gave blows by lathi on his person. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused petitioners for offence under sections 341,321, 307/34 IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions. Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track ) Sawai Madhopur. After hearing arguments the trial Judge framed charge against the accused petitioners for the offence under sections 341, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34, 307 and 307/34 IPC. Against this order of framing charge the accused petitioners filed the present revision petition for quashing the charge framed against them. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised following submissions : (a) The order of the lower court is patently illegal and erroneous. (b) The lower court has erred in framing the charge against the petitioners without considering the material and evidence available on reocrd. (c) The lower court has failed to consider that no injury of Devlal was certified as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and as such charge under section 307 and 307/34 IPC is not made out against the petitioners. (d) Fracture on the vital part of body is not to be construed necessary for constituting an offence under section 307 IPC, but a report by Doctor that injury found on person injured were dangerous to his life, would be sufficient evidence to frame charge under section 307 IPC. The injury sustained by Devlal is not dangerous to life and no case under section 307 or 307/34 IPC is made out against any of the petitioners. 4. On the basis of above arguments the learned counsel prayed that the charges framed against the accused petitioners should be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. Timan Singh. Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court rightly framed the charges against the accused petitioners on the basis of the material available on record. This court in revisional power should not interfere with the order framing charge against the accused petitioners. Learned counsel, however, has been very cautious not to argue on merits and rightly so because any comment by me on the merits is likely to prejudice the case of the accused or the prosecution. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This court in Om Prakash and another vs. State of Rajasthan,S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.1282 of 2003, decided on January 22, 2009 laid down following principles in regard to framing of charge by the courts below : (i) No reasons are required to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accused persons. (ii) In cases instituted otherwise than on a police report the Magistrate is required to write an order showing the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused. (iii)Only in a case where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the court can discharge the accused. (iv) the High Courts to be loathe in interfering at the stage of framing the charges against the accused. (v) At the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. (vi) It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. (vii) At the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (viii) If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. (ix) The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. (x) Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law. 7. The Apex Court in Om Wati vs. State AIR 2001 SC 1507 held as under : “ ... it would not be safe at this stage to deprive the prosecution in proving its case on the basis of direct evidence, the statement of the deceased claimed to be admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act and the other documents including the inquest report allegedly disclosing the infliction of injuries on the person of the deceased which resulted in his death. The acceptance of the opinion of the doctors, as incorporated in the post mortem report for the cause of death of deceased being hepatic failure following viral hapatites' cannot be accepted on its face value at this stage. Therefore the order of the High Court would be illegal and liable tobe set aside.” “ The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.” 8. For these reasons the revision petition is dismissed, but the accused petitioners shall be at liberty to move application under section 216 Cr.P.C, after recording of statement of doctor and the trial court shall decide the application in accordance with law as early as possible. 9. Since the main case has been disposed, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/