- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the framing of charges under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') against the petitioners, this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPC') has been filed with the prayer that the orders dated 23.3.2010, 24.4.2010 and 1.5. 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) (No.1) Jaipur District, be set aside.
(2.) BRIEF facts are that FIR No.142/2009 under Sections 143, 232, 341, 451 and 379 IPC was registered at Police Station Bassi, Jaipur(R) on 23.3.2009 on the basis of statement of Hanuman Sahai Sharma to the effect that a day before the incident, there was some altercation with Banwari on account of his brother Radheyshyam facing the school wall, and this issue was raised by Radheyshyam in the evening with Banwari, Ramvilas, Kamlesh and Sanwalram, asking as to why did Banwari abuse him in the morning. In reaction thereto, they started beating him, who was rescued by Madho. After sometime, again Ramavtar, Babu Vinod, and Ramvilas came to his house along with 10-12 unknown persons in two vehicles and threatened to kill them all, and went back. According to the complainant, today i.e. on 23.3.2009 at about 6.30 a.m., Prabhati Devi and Manbhar Devi, while going to their field were abused and beaten and Manbhar's gold ear-rings were looted by Banwari, Ram Vilas and Sanwalram. At about 10pm they, along with persons named in the FIR and some unknown, laced with 'lathi' 'gandasi' 'sariya' 'dantli' and axe, came to their house and attacked the elders and the female members of the family with intention to kill them. After grievously injuring Rajendra, Ramkunvar, Manbhar Devi and others named therein, they ran away. Ramkunvar, Manbhar and Rajendra were sent to SMS Hospital, Jaipur whereas others were given first-aid. On this report, case no.142/09 under Sections 143, 323, 341, 451 and 379 IPC was registered and investigated. During investigation, Ramkunvar died and on obtaining x-ray and other reports of Rajendra, Manbhar and Ramkunvar, Sections 325, 307 and 302 IPC were added. The investigation revealed that 19 persons of complainant party sustained about 56 injuries in all inflicted by 12 accused persons namely Ramvilas, Banwari, Vinod Kumar, Kamlesh, Ramotar, Sitaram, Ramjivan, Madholal, Babulal, Kailash, Ramkalyan, and Anokhi Devi and the charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 325, 307 and 302 IPC was filed against them on 21.12.2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, after hearing the charge arguments, passed impugned orders on 23.3.2010, 24.4.2010 and 1.5.2010 in Sessions Case No.23/2010, whereby charges were framed under Sections 148, 232, 323/149, 325 alternatively 325/149, 307/149, 302 in the alternative 302/149 IPC and read over to all the twelve accused persons. By way of this petition, said orders of framing and reading of charge have been assailed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that the offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be said to have been made out for the death of deceased Ramkunvar because admittedly the incident is dated 23.3.2009. The deceased Ramkunvar, according to the prosecution case, was admitted in the SMS Hospital and was operated on 24.3.2009 and discharged on 29.3.2009 and then he died on 23.6.2009 i.e. about three months later. According to him, the incident of 23.3.2009 cannot be said to be causa causis for his death. It was argued that even at the charge stage, if two views are possible on the basis of evidence of the prosecution, the view favourable to the accused should be taken. His argument was that the deceased was discharged by SMS Hospital on 29.3.2009, that means he was fit to be discharged on that day. His death occurred more than three months later. The possibility of his having died on account of some other incident taking place during this period, cannot be ruled out. His further argument was that the petitioners should be discharged from the offence under Section 302 / 302/149. It was also argued that none of the injuries of Rajendra or Manbhar or of any other injured have been opined by the doctor to be dangerous to life, therefore, offence under Section 307 or 307/149 can also not be said to be prima facie made out. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed on the decision rendered in Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394. ;