SB Crl.rev. No.1413/09. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1413/2009. Mukesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : August 20, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Lokesh Sharma for the petitioner. Shri N.R. Saran Public Prosecutor for State. Shri S.R. Yadav for accused-respondents No.2-5. ****** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for State as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the relevant documents placed before me. 2) This revision petition has been filed by the complainant aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 15/7/2009 by which, accused-respondents were discharged from offence u/S.459 IPC while framing charge for offence u/Ss.341, 323 and 325 IPC and sent the same to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur for its trial. SB Crl.rev. No.1413/09. 2 3) Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while discharging the accused- respondents from offence u/S.459 IPC, misread the evidence that has come on record and misconstrued the statements of the injured and his wife recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused respondents were aggressor. They knocked the door of the injured and when injured opened the door, they entered into the house of the complainant and gave beating to the injured inside the house. It was argued that ingredients of offence u/S.459 IPC were therefore fully attracted and thus, the offence of lurking trespass was committed by the accused respondents and there was prima- facie evidence to connect with the alleged offence was on record. In support of his contention, learned counsel drawn the attention of the court towards the FIR and certain statements of the witnesses so as to assail the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4) Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents opposed the revision petition and submitted that injured-Kailash Chand in his statement has clearly stated that SB Crl.rev. No.1413/09. 3 the accused knocked the door of his house and that they called the injured to come out and when he came outside after opening the door, he was subjected to beating. He has also referred to the statement of wife of the injured, Smt.Laxmidevi in which she has also stated that immediately after her husband went outside by opening the door, accused respondents subjected him to beating. Learned counsel in this connection also referred to the statements of Bhonridevi, Kalyan and Hajarilal, who were independent eye-witnesses of the alleged incident and discussion about them was made in the impugned-order. 5) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned-order, I find that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is a comprehensive and considered one in that he has made elaborate discussion of the own admission of injured-Kailash Chand and his wife-Laxmidevi and their allegation that Kailash Chand was subjected to beating outside the house when he went outside therefrom after opening the door at a place at X-1 which is Chabutara situated outside the house. He also mentioned the statements given by independent eye-witnesses, SB Crl.rev. No.1413/09. 4 namely; Bhonridevi, Kalyan and Hajarilal. 6) In my considered view, the order dated 15/7/2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or impropriety so as to make interference by this Court therewith. 7) Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed. However, the learned trial court may not be influenced by the observations made by this Court while deciding the present revision petition as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in the impugned-order while deciding the case. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil