[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mukesh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:20241) on 25 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:20241]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 927/2018
1. Mukesh S/o Sh. Punjaram, Aged 22 Years, B/c Meghwal,
2. Lekhraj S/o Sh. Punjaram, Aged 24 Years, B/c Meghwal,
3. Gopa Ram S/o Sh. Nakhtaram, Aged 40 Years, B/c
Meghwal,
All R/o Ramdevra, Jaisalmer
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Chutraram S/o Sh. Tagaram, Aged About 37 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Ramdevra, P.s. Ramdevra, Jaisalmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Heera Lal Choudhary with
Mr. NS Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
25/04/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.07.2018
passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, whereby the learned Judge allowed the
application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No.2-
complainant and took cognizance against the petitioners for
offences under Sections 323, 341, 325, 308/149 IPC and issued
summons against them.
Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on
07.09.2017, complainant-respondent No.2 submitted a written
report before the concerned Police Station to the effect that the
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 09:53:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20241] (2 of 5) [CRLR-927/2018]
The accused individuals, including the petitioners, are alleged to
have assaulted his brother Omaram, sister-in-law, Mrs. Dali Devi,
and their daughter using lathis and iron rods. Following the report
lodged by the complainant, the Police registered a case and
initiated an investigation. Upon completing the investigation, the
Police filed a charge sheet against certain accused individuals,
namely Punjaram, Nemichand, and Harjesh Kumar, while they
submitted a negative final report regarding the present
petitioners, citing insufficient evidence to proceed against them.
Subsequently, the complainant/respondent No. 2 filed an
application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court
seeking cognizance against the present petitioners, which came to
be allowed vide order dated 19.07.2018, leading the trial court to
take cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners.
Consequently, this revision petition.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that although the names
of the petitioners are mentioned in the First Information Report
(FIR), no specific roles have been attributed to them concerning
the injuries inflicted upon the victims. The counsel draws
attention to the injury report, which indicates that injured Dali Bai
sustained two injuries of a simple nature, while injured Omaram
suffered five injuries, one of which is classified as grievous,
specifically a fracture of the tibia and fibula in his right leg. While
the injured parties named the petitioners in their statements, the
counsel asserts that they did not provide specific role to the
petitioners. Additionally, three witnesses testified that the
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 09:53:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20241] (3 of 5) [CRLR-927/2018]
petitioners were not present at the scene of the incident, thereby
establishing a defence of alibi. The petitioners were subsequently
exonerated by the Police. Nevertheless, the trial court allegedly
failed to consider these critical factors, and in a cursory manner,
allowed the application under Section 193 Cr.P.C., taking
cognizance against the petitioners. The counsel deems the
impugned order of cognizance as prima-facie illegal and deserves
to be quashed and setaside.
Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order
and submitted that after taking into consideration the material
available on record, the trial court has rightly taken cognizance
against the present petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The
impugned order is a reasoned one and therefore, warrants no
interference from this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
order impugned as well as material available on record.
In the present case, it is evident that the FIR lodged by the
complainant, respondent No. 2, pertains to an assault allegedly
perpetrated by the accused individuals, including the present
petitioners, against his brother and family members. Following an
extensive investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against
certain individuals while submitting a negative final report
concerning the present petitioners. Thereafter, the complainant
filed an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C., which came to be
allowed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 19.07.2018
and cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the alleged
offences.
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 09:53:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20241] (4 of 5) [CRLR-927/2018]
In considering the arguments presented by the counsel for
the petitioner concerning the alibi defence, this court finds it
necessary to address the evidentiary context surrounding the
matter at hand. The First Information Report (FIR) and the
statements provided by the injured parties distinctly identify the
petitioners as participants in inflicting the injuries sustained by
them. Such direct attribution in the FIR carries significant weight
in establishing the presence of the accused at the scene of the
incident. The principle of an alibi defence fundamentally relies on
the assertion that the accused was not present at the scene where
the alleged crime occurred, thereby negating their involvement in
the commission of the offence. However, in the present case, the
explicit naming of the petitioners as the alleged assailants
undermines the plausibility of the alibi defence at this stage.
Moreover, it is imperative to note that the burden of proof
concerning an alibi typically rests on the accused, who must
provide credible evidence to substantiate their claim. The absence
of compelling evidence to corroborate the petitioners’ position
further diminishes the viability of such a defence.
In light of the aforementioned considerations, this court
concludes that the defence of alibi, as argued by the counsel for
the petitioner, cannot be upheld at this juncture. The matter will
proceed based on the available evidence, which necessitates
careful examination during the ensuing stages of the evidence.
Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the
learned trial court acted appropriately in taking cognizance against
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 09:53:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20241] (5 of 5) [CRLR-927/2018]
the petitioners. There exists substantive evidence implicating the
petitioners in the incident, as the injured parties have explicitly
identified them in their statements.
In view of above, this Court is of the view that the learned
trial court has committed no error in taking cognizance against the
petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The impugned order is
perfectly justified warranting no interference from this Court.
Consequently, the revision petition being without merit, is
dismissed.
Stay application is also dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
79-MS/-
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 09:53:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link