GAUTAM RAJ MEHTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Gautam Raj Mehta
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Referred Judgements :-
MST. JEET KAUR V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
N.M. Kasliwal, J. -
(1.)Both these revisions are directed against the order of the learned Sessions udge, Sawai Madhopur dated Feb. 4, 1984, framing charge under Sections 36, 330 and 342 Penal Code against the petitioners.
(2.)Brief facts leading this case are that one FIR was lodged at Police Station Sawai Madhopur against the petitioners on Aug. 17, 1983. According to the prosecution case the petitioner Ram Babu, who was maternal brother of Mohan (deceased), made efforts for getting Mohan employed on work charge basis under the subordination of petitioner Gautam Raj Mehta. Mohan was accordingly given the appointment on work-charge basis in the office of Forest Department, Sawai Madhopur One Shri Bhagwan Singh Nathawat, who was a Ranger, was staying at the quarter of Gautam Raj Mehta and in his attache one Tape-recorder, to pents and three were lying in the room. Mohan, who was working on work-charge basis, entered the room and stole away these articles. Shri Bhagwan Singh brought the fact of theft to the notice of Shri Gautam Raj Mehta. This theft is alleged to have been committed on Aug. 15, 1983 by Mohan. The petitioner Ram Babu when came to know about all these facts, he was shocked by the behaviour of Mohan. It is alleged that both the petitioners took Mohan to his village Kawad and narrated the entire facts to the father of Mohan. Mohan alongwith his father and uncle Dwarka Prasad came back to the Forest quarter where Mohan was again asked about the stolen articles. On Aug. 16, 1983, Mohans father and uncle returned to their village to bring other villagers to settle the matter. The prosecution story further is that on Aug. 16,1983. Mohan stated that these articles were lying in Jatwara, a suburb of Sawai Madhopur. On this Jagan Sahai and Mahesh took Mohan to Jatwara on their cycle, and when they came to Man-town market, Mohan stated that he wanted to make water. Mohan thereafter jumped into a well where electric motor was fixed. Jagan Sahai went inside the well to rescue Mohan but his attempt fell in vain. Thereafter Mohan was taken to the hospital where Mohan was declared / dead. An FIR in these circumstances was lodged against present petitioners and a case was registered under sections 306, 330 and 342 IPC. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan in the court of Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments framed charges under the above mentioned sections against the petitioners. In these circumstances, Ram Babu and Gautam Raj Mehta has filed these two separate revisions challenging the framing of charges against them.
(3.)It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as offence under Sec. 306 Penal Code is concerned, there is no evidence on record arid the Charge is totally groundless. It is submitted that there was no instigation from, the side of the petitioners for committing suicide by Mohan. There was no iota of evidence in this regard. The petitioners had not Mohan at the time when he committed suicide, he was at that time being accompanied by Jagan Sahai and Mahesh and in these circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioners had in any manner instigated or aided Mohan in committing suicide. As regards the offences under section 330 and 342 Penal Code learned counsel for the petitioners frankly conceded that they were not challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge for these two offences.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.