[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ashok Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20224) on 25 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:20224]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1237/2023
1. Ashok Choudhary S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged 30 Years,
2. Smt. Chaini Devi W/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged 54 Years,
3. Smt. Sumitra W/o Ashok Choudhary, Aged 32 Years,
All R/o Surpura Kallan, Karwar, Dist. Jodhpur(Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bhanu Pratap Choudhary S/o Lalchand, Aged About 25
Years, B/c Jat R/o Surpura Kallan, Karwar, Dist. Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SK Prajapati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
Mr. Dharmendra Jasmatiya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
25/04/2025
The present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated
14.07.2023 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge
No.6, Jodhpur whereby learned Judge framed the charges against
the petitioner for offence under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 324/34,
Brief facts of the case are that complainant Bhanupratap
Choudhary submitted a written report before the concerned Police
Station to the effect that on 04.07.2021, the accused petitioners
assaulted his parents Lalchand and Kaushalya using deadly
weapon viz. Axe, dhariya & kesi. On the said report, the police
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 09:53:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20224] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1237/2023]
registered FIR No.95/2021 and started investigation. After
investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the present
petitioners before the competent court and after arguments,
charges were framed against the petitioners for aforesaid offence.
Hence, this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his arguments
solely to the charge framed for offence under Section 308/34 IPC.
Counsel contends that in this case, total five Investigating Officer
have investigated the matter and out of them, three Investigating
Officer have not found sufficient evidence to establish the offence
under Section 308 IPC against the petitioners. Furthermore,
Counsel highlights that the injury reports indicated that the
injured Kaushalya and Lal Chand sustained four and five simple
injuries, respectively. Notably, the x-ray report reveals that no
grievous injuries were sustained. Additionally, the attending
physician has opined that injuries inflicted upon both the injured
are not dangerous to life. Consequently, the offence under Section
308 IPC is not made out against the present petitioners. Counsel
further submits that a counter-case has also been registered by
the petitioners against the complainant party for causing injuries
to petitioners No.1 & 2. This case is characterized as a “free fight”.
Hence, the impugned order to the extent of framing charge under
Section 308/34 IPC is per-se illegal and deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
respondent No.2/complainant have vehemently opposed the
revision and asserted that injured Kaushalya, sustained a single
head injury, which although classified as simple in nature,
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 09:53:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20224] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1237/2023]
unequivocally demonstrates the petitioner’s intention to cause
death. Thus, offence under Section 308 IPC is clearly made out
against the petitioners. They contend that the order impugned of
framing charge against the petitioner is perfectly justified and
does not warrant any interference from this Court. Furthermore,
at the time of framing charge, meticulous examination of evidence
is not necessary. To buttress his contentions, counsel has relied
upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Mahendra Singh
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2022 0 Supreme (Raj) 687] and in
the case of Roopa Ram & Anrs. Vs. State of Rajasthan [2020 (1)
CJ (Cri.) Raj. 520].
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order as well as carefully gone through the material
available on record.
It is well settled legal framework, it is unequivocally
understood that during the stage of charge framing, the primary
consideration is whether there exist prima facie grounds sufficient
to warrant the continuation of proceedings against an accused
individual. At this juncture, the threshold for suspicion remains
comparatively low, necessitating only a strong presumption to
justify the framing of charges. Importantly, the analysis of
evidence is not requisite at this stage, as such scrutiny is reserved
for the trial phase. Additionally, it is firmly established that, at this
preliminary stage, only the charge-sheet and the evidence
gathered during the investigation, which accompanies the charge-
sheet, are to be examined.
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 09:53:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20224] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1237/2023]
In the present case, following a thorough investigation, the
police have filed a challan against the petitioners for offence under
Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The injured parties,
Kaushalya and Lalchand, sustained four and five injuries
respectively, including a significant head injury. Although the
injuries sustained by the petitioners are characterized as simple in
nature, it is notable that they inflicted multiple injuries on the
victims. In light of these circumstances, there exist prima facie
grounds sufficient for the trial court to proceed with framing
charges against the petitioners under Sections 308/34 IPC.
In view of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
the trial court has committed no error in framing the charge for
the aforesaid offences against the present petitioners.
Thus, the revision petition, being bereft of any force, is
hereby dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
60-MS/-
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 09:53:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link