P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) All these revision petitions are arising out of a common order passed in Sessions Case No.112/2017 by Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (for short, 'learned trial Court'), therefore, all are heard together and disposed of by the common order.
(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant lodged FIR No.07 on 29th of February, 2016 at Police Station, Sam, District Jaisalmer, against 31 accused person, including all the petitioners, castigating them for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 336, 427 read with Section 149 IPC. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against accused-petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307/149, 336 and 427 IPC and for other accused persons, viz., Mochare Khan and Mubin Khan, cognizance was taken on the application of complainant under Section 190 Cr.P.C., 1973 Subsequently, the case was committed to learned trial Court by Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer, by resorting to Section 209 Cr.P.C., 1973 The learned trial Court, thereafter, heard arguments before framing charges and while resorting to Section 228 Cr.P.C., 1973 framed charges against 22 persons including all the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 336, 427 read with Section 149 IPC.
(3.) Challenging the impugned order, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned trial Court has completely overlooked the basic ingredients of Section 149 IPC and the requisite material available on record has not been scrutinized in right perspective. It is submitted by learned counsel that very edifice of offence under Section 149 IPC is common object of the members of unlawful assembly but the same is not discernible from the evidence collected during investigation besides other materials. Learned counsel further contends that the learned trial Court, while framing charges, has not made any endeavor to examine true purport of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. and has mechanically exercised power under Section 228 Cr.P.C., 1973 in framing the charges. While confining his grievances against charge Nos.7 and 8, it is contended by learned counsel that the learned trial Court has not at all cared to examine the injury report of Sodde Khan (injured) inasmuch as though injury No.1 is an incised wound at the left temporal region, but surprisingly no injury is seen on the right temporal region. Mr. Bohra has further argued that medical opinion in this regard is full of infirmities and furthermore other injured Amal Khan, Munad Khan, Allahrakha Khan, Shobha Khan and Gulam Khan have not suffered grievous injuries. It is also argued by learned counsel that the incised wound at left temporal region of injured Sodde Khan is only 3 cm. deep, and therefore, the opinion of doctor showing it dangerous to life is prima facie infirm and cannot satisfy the test of prudency. In support of his arguments, Mr. B.P. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioners, has placed reliance on following judgments: 1. P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Anr. [(2010) 2 SCC 398] 2. Vijay Pandurang Thakre and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra [(2017) 4 SCC 377] .;