- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
(2.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under Section 397(401) Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.01.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Kota(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court ') in Session Case No. 141/2011, whereby charges have been framed against the accused-petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 452/34 IPC and under Section 4/25 Arms Act. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Prabhu Lal lodged FIR at Police Station Kaithoon, Kota bearing No. 237/2010 inter alia alleging that the son of the complainant Rajesh went to connect electric wire at D.P. and when he was sitting at the shop of Mahavir, then accused-petitioner Narayan came at there and asked him as to why he connected the wire in D.P. due to which some altercations took place and the person present there separated them and sent them at their residences. Thereafter, the complainant, his son Rajesh, Ramesh, Suresh and his brother Prem Chandra were sleeping in the "Chowk " of the house and at about 11.00 P.M., accused-petitioners Narayan, Sunil, Tulsiram entered in the house carrying weapons. Narayan was carrying Desi(local) Katta and sword, Sunil and Tulsiram were carrying knife and Gupti and accused Narayan opened fire from Desi Katta and then, all the accused-petitioners started beatings to Rajesh and when the complainant and Ramesh run to rescue, then they were also beaten. After due investigation, concerned police filed the charge sheet in the Court of Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, North, Kota for offences under Sections 308, 341, 323, 324, 452/34 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act and then the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Trial Court. Learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for both the parties, passed impugned order dated 19.01.2012 framing charges against the accused-petitioners in the terms as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2012 passed by the Trial Court, the accused-petitioners have filed this revision petition before this Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused-petitioners vehemently contended that order passed by the Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures. If all evidence is taken together, no case is made out against the accused-petitioners. He further submitted that impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is patently illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law as also the material available on record. Learned Court below has seriously erred in passing the impugned order because there was no legal evidence to connect the accused-petitioners with the alleged crime. He further submitted that the order framing a charge effects a person 's liberty substantially and, therefore, it is the duty of the Court to consider judiciously whether the material warrants framing of charges or not and it cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution or the complainant that the accused be asked to face the trial. Impugned order is not reasoned and speaking order and thus, not sustainable in the eyes of law. The injuries found against all the persons are simple in nature and as such no case for offence under Section 308 IPC is made out against the accused-petitioners. The allegations levelled by the complainant are prima facie not correct, which clearly shows that the injuries were also caused by blunt weapons. As per allegations, there were only sharp edged weapons. However, all the injuries are simple in nature and no case for offence under Section 308 IPC is made out. The doctor has not opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death which would be amount to culpable homicide. Learned Trial Court has not considered the aspect that in order to frame the charges, the requirement is to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existing of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences. The injuries sustained by injured persons are simple in nature and not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. So, offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out in this case. So, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners prayed that instant revision petition may be allowed, impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court may be quashed and set aside and the accused-petitioners may be discharged. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions delivered by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the cases of Onkar Nath Mishra and Others Vs. State(NCT of Delhi) And Another, (2008) 2 SCC 561 and Bishan Singh and Anr. Vs. The State, AIR 2008 SC 131.;