BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) IN a case of murder of one Boraram and injuries sustained by Babu Ram and Yashpal Singh @ Galad, after investigation charge-sheet against the ten petitioners was filed When the accused were committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur the learned Judge charge-sheeted all the petitioners for the offences under section 302, 302 read with 149 I. P. C. and 147 I. P. C. for performing an unlawful assembly and committing the murder of Boraram Charge for the offence u/s. 323 I. P. C. was also framed against Bhartiram for the injuries caused to Babu Ram and Satyanarayan & Satya Prakash for the injuries caused to Yashpal Singh @ Galad. The remaining petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offence under sections 323 read with 149 I. P. C. for the simple injuries caused to Babu Ram and Yashpal Singh. The order dated November 3, 1983 passed after hearing the arguments for framing the charge caused grievance to the petitioners.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the learned Judge has not applied mind as to which offence was made out against which of the accused and has framed common charges against them all. That, the postmortem examinations report is specific on the point that the cause of death was head injuries. That, only three persons were responsible for the four head injuries and as such there cannot be any justification for charge-sheeting all the petitioners for the offence u/s. 302 I. P. C. On the same analogy, the learned counsel stressed that the charge u/s. 302 read with 149 I P. C. should also not have been framed. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to certain authorities. None of the case cited by the learned counsel are applicable to the point for the reasons which I would enumerate at appropriate place. The first point arising in the case is whether this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction should interfere into the question as to what particular charge should have been framed by the trial Court. In other words, whether the impugned order falls within the ambit of an interlocutory order or not. Sec. 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes a restriction on exercise of revisional jurisdiction in relation to any interlocutory order. However, in certain cases ex-facie there may appear no scope for any charge. Refusal to interfere in such matter may lead to unnecessary harassment to the persons charge-sheeted and therefore, the revisional jurisdiction may be invoked. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction would therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the present case the grievance of the petitioners is not that no charge at all could have been framed and the petitioners are going to be harassed by a trial. Rather dissatisfaction, as stated above, is that in view of the medical report, charge u/s. 302 I. P. C. could not have been framed against all the petitioners and at the most three persons only could be charge-sheeted regarding the alleged fatal injuries on the head of the deceased. In the case of In re Bhupalli Malliah (1) the question before their Lordships in the appeal was regarding the duplicity, multiplicity and vagueness of the charges. In the present case, charges are separate, clear and suffer from no infirmity of style. The case of Santosh vs. State of M. P. (2) and Tarlok Singh vs. State of Punjab (3) related to the vicarious liability of a person for the act done by the other member of the unlawful assembly. All these points in my opinion would be the subject matter of decision at the completion of the trial and the learned Judge could not be expected to apply mind to that extent so as to form an opinion at the initial stage as to whether a particular person can be held vicariously liable for the act of other or not.
(3.) IN the case of Molu vs. State of Haryana (4) and Ghanshyam vs. The State of Rajasthan (5) the point for decision was whether in a case where the death of the victim was due to cumulative effect of the injuries sustained by him, the case may fall within the ambit of definition of murder. The weapon used, the nature of the injuries and parts effected were the factors taken into consideration while forming an opinion that the case did not travel beyond the ambit of Sec 304 I. P. C. In all these cases the question about the applicability of a particular section was considered at the time of the final decision in the light of the evidence brought on record during the course of trial. It does not however mean that even in cases when there is ex-facie no case made out, the legality of the charge should not be looked into prior to the conclusion of the trial. What I mean to say is that in a case like the present one where the deceased had sustained 25 injuries in all, out of which four were head injuries and there is a primafacie case made out against all the petitioners the Court framing charges u/s. 302, 302/149 I. P. C. against all the petitioners cannot be said to be in error. In this view of the matter if the learned Judge, at the initial stage of framing the charge,, thought it safe to frame the charge for the offences stated earlier, he cannot be said to have committed any illegality so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. ;