[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jethu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29996) on 10 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:29996]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1142/2023
Jethu Singh S/o Mangal Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Melba,
P.s. Jhanwar, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Kailash Kanwar W/o Ladu Singh, R/o Melba, P.s.
Jhanwar, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Jaitawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
10/07/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 16.05.2023, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan in
Sessions Case No.65/2022, whereby learned trial court framed the
charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 458,
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a
complaint was filed by the complainant, in which the petitioner
was arrested under Section 107 & 151 Cr.P.C. and he was released
on bail in the said complaint, a false FIR was lodged against him.
Counsel further submits that according to the injury reports of
injured Sumer Singh, Sua Kanwar, Kailash Kanwar & Jabbar Singh,
they received only simple injuries and most of the injuries are
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:43:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29996] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1142/2023]
bruises and pain. Counsel further submits that from the reading of
the statements of the injured and other witnesses of the incident
as well as from injury reports, offence under Section 307 IPC is
not at all made out against the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed
that the impugned order to the extent of framing charge for
offence under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner being per se
illegal may be quashed and set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that
learned trial court has justifiably framed the charge for offence
under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner. Furthermore, at the
time of framing charge, meticulous examination of evidence is not
necessary. The impugned order of framing charge is perfectly
justified and requires no interference from this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order of framing charge passed by the trial court as well
as injury report and other documents available on record.
Allegedly the incident took place on 08.02.2022 and FIR was
lodged on 10.02.2022 and initially the petitioner was detained by
the Police in respect of the said incident for offence under Sections
107, 151 Cr.P.C. Further, The injury reports of injured persons
classified all the injuries sustained as simple in nature and there
are material contradictions in the statements of the injured
witnesses as well as other witnesses. Thus, this Court is of the
view that the injuries sustained by the injured do not fulfill the
essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC, which requires an act
done with the intention or knowledge of causing death, and an act
so dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. Thus, the
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:43:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29996] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1142/2023]
case does not establish an offence under Section 307 IPC. At
most, the evidence might support a charge under Section 308 IPC.
But, the learned trial court without proper consider of the
evidence, has framed the charge under Section 307 IPC against
the petitioners which is apparently illegal. Therefore, the
impugned order to the extent of framing charge for offence under
Section 307 IPC deserves to be quashed and set aside. Rest of the
charges framed by the trial court are not interfered with.
Hence, the order impugned dated 16.05.2023 passed by the
learned trial Court is set aside to the extent of framing charge for
offence under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner and the trial
court is directed to frame the charge for offence under Section
308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC. The other charges framed by
the trial court are not interfered with.
The instant revision petition is partly allowed. Stay
application is also decided.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
90-MS/-
(Downloaded on 10/07/2025 at 09:43:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link