1 SB CRI. REVISION NO.880/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.880/2010 [BIRBALNATH & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJ.] Date of Order :: 15.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. Rajesh Panwar for the petitioner. ***** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.09.2010, passed by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Case No.36/2006 ordered to frame the charges against the petitioners under Sections 148, 341, 323, 149, 325 in alternative 325 r.w. 149 and under Section 307 in alternative 307 r.w. 149 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners have been charged for the offence under Section 307 in alternative Section 307 r.w. 149 IPC for alleged injury caused to Shanker Lal and the injuries sustained by Shanker Lal were not of such a nature which could be dangerous to life because there 2 SB CRI. REVISION NO.880/2010 were only four fractures on 6th to 9th right ribs, therefore, the order of the trial court suffers from illegality and impropriety, therefore, requires to be set aside. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. I have heard both the counsel for the parties, and considered the rival arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the relevant record as well as material provided by learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the First Information Report submitted by the complainant, name of all the five accused persons were mentioned in the FIR for causing the injuries on three injured namely Shanker Lal, Hari Ram and Bajrang Lal. Out of six injuries, there were four fractures of right ribs sustained by Shanker Lal and others were simple in nature caused to other injured Hari Ram and Bajrang Lal. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that earlier on dated 08.05.2008, the X-Ray report was obtained by the Investigating Officer but later on 3 SB CRI. REVISION NO.880/2010 on 12.05.2008, the opinion of the medical jurist was called and he opined that “injuries may be potentially dangerous to life”. He further contended that this opinion was rendered by the medical jurist on the basis of papers of PBM Hospital, Bikaner. It is settled position of law that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The revisional jurisdiction is not ordinarily be invoked or used merely because the lower court has wrong view of the law or the facts. It is also settled position of law that the revisional court cannot sit over the view of the trial court while invoking the jurisdictional powers. Whether the opinion dated 08.05.2008 was correct or not? It requires to be adjudicated by trial and for framing charges only. The injury report is not the relevant documents. On the conjoined readings of the FIR alongwith statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the injury reports are relevant documents. 4 SB CRI. REVISION NO.880/2010 In view of the above legal position, in my considered view, the order passed by the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. The learned trial court has rightly ordered to frame the charge regarding the injuries of all the three injured persons for offence under Section 307 or alternatively 307 r.w. 149 IPC In view of the discussions made above, the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu does not require any interference by this court. Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI], J. mamta