- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1-State and learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 7-accused and perused the impugned order dated 25.07.2012 and all the relevant documents placed on record.
(2.) THIS revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 25.07.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 57/2011, whereby the accused-Respondents No. 2 to 7 have been discharged from the offence under Section 307 IPC and case has been remanded under Section 228 Cr.P.C. for framing charges under Sections 147, 341, 323, 325 read with Section 149 IPC. Learned counsel for complainant-petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial court is based on surmises and conjectures and is illegal and not sustainable being contrary to the facts of the case and the material available on record. Learned Trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate that to justify a charge under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury culpable of causing death should have been inflicted. Section 307 IPC makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result. Such an act may not be attended by any result. So far as person assaulted is concerned, it is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient in ordinary circumstances to cause death of the person assaulted. What the Court is to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. The requisite intention may be detected from surrounding circumstances of the case. From the statements of the witnesses it is clear in this case that all the accused-respondents assaulted petitioner after forming an unlawful assembly with the intention of murder and as a result of assault, the petitioner sustained as many as ten injuries, which resulted into fracture of L-1, L-2 and L-3 vertebrae. The petitioner as a result of fracture of spinal cord has virtually become handicapped for the rest of his life. So, learned Trial Court has acted illegally by not considering and appreciating provisions of law and learned Trial Court has seriously erred in overlooking the fact that the intention of the accused-persons was apparent that they intended murder of the injured, which is apparent from their conduct. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner further contended that accused-respondents are the known criminals of the local area who have committed number of offences earlier also. Even after the present incident, they have committed another incident regarding which an F.I.R. No. 367/2010 was registered against them in the same Police Station. So, in case, the impugned order is allowed to sustain, the same will result into the gross miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Balram Patil and Others, AIR 1983 SC 30 and decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, RLR 2001 (3) page 43.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused-Respondents No. 2 to 7 supported the order and submitted that the same is just and proper and contended that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out in this case. He has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Ajay Kumar And Ors. Vs. State, 2002 WLC(Raj.) UC, 782; Ramoutar @ Outar and Ors. Vs. State and Anr., 2003 WLC(Raj.) UC, 725; Neelam Bahal and Anr. Vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2010 Cr.L.R.(SC) 158; Ram Kumar and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr., 1998 Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 381.;