S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1380/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Poona Ram & Ors. Versus The State of Rajasthan S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1380/2007 Date of Order : 09.12.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. Sanjay Mathur for the petitioners Mr. Anil Upadhyay – Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT By this revision petition, petitioners Poona Ram, Kaloo Ram, Heera Ram, Smt. Teepu, Smt. Meera, Sana Ram @ Sama Ram, Raja Ram and Veera Ram have challenged the order dated 17.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bali, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 9/2007, whereby the learned trial court has ordered to frame charges against petitioners-accused Poona Ram and Veera Ram under section 148, 341, 326, 324/149, 323 in alternative 323/149, 307 in alternative 307/149, 336 in alternative 336/149 IPC and against petitioners-accused Kaloo Ram, Heera Ram, Sana Ram, Raja Ram, Smt. Teepu, Smt. Page 1 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1380/2007 Meera charges were framed under Section 148, 341, 326/149, 324 in alternative 324/149, 323 in alternative 323/149, 307 in alternative 307/149, 336 in alternative 336/149 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.04.2007, Kana Ram filed a written report at the Police Station Sadri stating inter alia that the complainant alongwith his maternal uncle Hema Ram and Bhola Ram were going towards the bus stand. When they reached near the house of Poona Ram, 8-9 persons including ladies armed with Dhariya, Lathis, Iron Rods etc. came and attacked Hema Ram. Poona Ram inflicted Dhariya blow on the head of Hema Ram, Heera Ram inflicted injury by iron rod, Kaloo Ram inflicted lathi blow, Poona Ram's sister's husband inflicted Khunt blow, Sana Ram inflicted lathi blow. It is also stated that Smt. Meera and Smt. Teepu also inflicted lathi blows on him with intention to kill him. When he and Bhola Ram tried to rescue, accused-persons also gave beating. They raised hue and cry, upon which accused left them and fled from the scene of occurrence. It was also stated that Hema Ram and Poona Ram had old enmity, therefore, they attacked him with intention to kill him. Hema Ram sustained injuries on his head legs and other parts of the body. He was hospitalized at Sadri in unconscious condition. Page 2 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1380/2007 On the aforesaid report, police registered a criminal case and commenced investigation. After usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused- petitioners under Section 143, 323, 324, 336, 341 and 307 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Desuri. The learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bali. The learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 17.11.2007 framed charges against the accused-petitioners as narrated hereinabove. The petitioners being aggrieved of the aforesaid order have preferred this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that none of the injuries suffered by the injured were dangerous to life and all the injuries were simple in nature, therefore, the learned trial court erred in framing the charge under Section 307 or 307/149 IPC. He further submitted that the injuries sustained by Hema Ram were simple in nature and some of them were caused by sharp weapon, therefore, the learned trial court committed serious illegality in passing the order for framing charges against the petitioners. Page 3 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1380/2007 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor contended that while framing the charge against the petitioners, the learned trial court appreciated the fact that the accused- petitioners were armed with deadly weapons like Koot, Dhariya, Bewala, Sariya, Lathis etc. and they had common intention to attempt to cause death of Hema Ram, 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 record of the 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 Page 4 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1380/2007 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. On perusal of the injury report as well as the opinion sought by the Investigating Officer from the Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Sadri, it appears the that the Medical Officer has opined that “collectively all injuries are dangerous to life”. 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 Page 5 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1380/2007 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. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and looking to the opinion given by the Medical Officer, I am of the view that 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 petitioners against the dated 17.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bali, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 9/2007 is dismissed at the admission stage itself. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J. Pramod Page 6 of 6