1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1472/2009) Date of Order :- 09th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Rajeev Surana, for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror, District Alwar whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 323, 341, 324, 326 & 307 IPC against the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Surana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that Ashok Kumar is a person of anti-social element who had entered into the petitioner's house, and had tried to abduct one of his lady relatives. In order to stop him from abducting the person, and in exercise of his right of private defence, the incident had occurred. Secondly, according to the opinion of the Doctor, the Injury No.3, on the right side of the scalp and Injury No.4, on occipital area “may be dangerous to life in normal course”. Thus, the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not fulfilled. Thirdly, there are cross cases from both the sides. Lastly, the petitioner had no intention to commit attempt to murder. Hence, the charge order may be quashed and set aside. Heard the learned counsel, and perused the injury report as well as the opinion of the Doctor. 2 Prima facie the petitioner has pleaded right of private defence. But whether he can succeed in his pleas is a matter for the trial court to appreciate. His plea of private defence can neither be entertained, nor considered at this initial stage. Moreover, merely because, the injured happens to be a person who had broken the law on earlier occasion, it could not give a right to the petitioner to cause injuries to him. Furthermore, whether the injuries were dangerous to life or were not dangerous to life is again a matter of evidence to be appreciated by the trial court. Since the Doctor has clearly stated that the injuries “may be dangerous to life in normal course”, a strong prima facie case does exist against the petitioner for having committed an offence under Section 307 IPC. For the reasons stated above, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-