SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) By way of this revision, the petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 26.8.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Aburoad, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No.87/2015 directing framing of charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 332/149, 353/149, 333/149, 336/149 IPC and 3 PDPP Act.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners contends that ex-facie, from the admitted allegations of the prosecution, the charges under Sections 333 and 307 I.P.C. are not made out against the petitioners. Drawing attention of the Court to the X-ray report of the injured Anil Kumar, he contends that the Radiololgist has given a specific opinion that the injury No.2 caused to Anil Kumar was simple in nature and therefore, the trial Court was absolutely unjustified in directing framing of charge for the offence under Section 333 I.P.C. against the accused. He further contends that the admitted case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet that the accused were protesting against the management of the cement factory. The Police party had gone there to stop the protest. During this process, stones were pelted and a few injuries were caused to the Police personnel. None of the injuries was caused on the vital body part of the injured. The injuries are all superficial in nature and were not life threatening. Thus, he contends that by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that the petitioners intended to make an attempt at the life of the members of the police party. Thus, he submits that the impugned order deserves to be modified in the terms prayed for.
(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that none of the injured was caused any injury on the vital part of the body. Furthermore, as per the medical reports available on record, all the injured other than Constable Anil Kumar received simple superficial injuries in the incident. Only Anil Kumar lost an incisor tooth as a result of the impact of the stone pelted towards him which injury has been opined to be grievous in the MLC. It is also not in dispute that the Police party had gone to the place of occurrence in order to stop the proposed agitation of the labourers against the management of the cement factory. The allegation of the prosecution witnesses is that they tried to pacify the crowd led by the present petitioners, but the mob started raising slogans and was trying to forcibly enter the factory. During this process, stone pelting started and as a result thereof, few superficial and one grievous injury was caused to the Police personnel.;