JAMIL KHAN & 4 OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJ.

Order

December 16 , 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Dr. Mahesh Sharma for the petitioners. Mr. Suresh Sahni for the complainant Mr. B.N. Sandu, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed against the order dated June 20, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2008 by which charges were framed against accused petitioners under sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 323/149, 325, 325/149, 307 and 307/149 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on March 25, 2007 Abdul Salam (complainant) son of Hajinur Khan submitted a report stating therein that on that day at about 8 a.m. he alongwith his nephew Kallu and Dilsad were coming to their home by motorcycle. In the market Khalil Ahmed, Jamil, Tarif, Shakir, Raees, Sajid, Jafar Master and eight other persons having sticks, swords, guns and kattas on seeing Kallu and Dilshad, with intent to kill them fired shots by gun and katta and gave beatings to them due to which his nephew remained lying on the earth. On hearing noise of fire shots by gun and katta, police personnel of the nearby police station came at the spot. In the complaint it was written that earlier the accused persons were having enmity with them and they also gave beating to them for which case is already registered. On the basis of this report the police registered FIR No. 45 of 2007 for offences under sections 143, 341, 323 and 307 IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter it was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sawai Madhopur. The trial court framed charges against the accused petitioner vide order dated June 20, 2008 as mentioned above.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court overlooked the basic principels of crminal jurisprudence that in a criminal case charges should be framed in accordance with the material available in the charge sheet, but in the instant matter the trial court while framing charges overlooked the above principle and the charges have been framed in a mechanical manner. In the charge sheet the investigating agency no where mentioned that any fire arm was recovered from any of the accused petitioners. It is unjustified and illogical to frame charge under section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Maha Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1976 SC 449,Mirza Akba vs. King Emperor (AIR 1940 Privy Council 176), State of Gujrat vs. Mohammed Atik and others (1998) f4 SCC 351, Nesar Ahmed and another vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 2416)Anjlus Dungdung vs. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2005 SC 1394) Sanjay vs. State of Rajasthan 2006 (2) RLW1521) People's Union for Civil Libertieis vs. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568, Cr. Appeal 68 of 20002 decided on December 12, 2003 Rakesh Kumar vs. State (at Delhi High Court), Sashi Kumar Banerjee vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (AIR 1964 SC 529) S.Gopal Reddy vs. State of Andhra (AIR 1996 SC 2184) Alamgir vs. State (2003Cr.L.J. 456), Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another (1979) 3 SCC 4)Dilawar Babu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2002 SC 564), and Yogesh vs. State of Maharashtra (2008 (2) Crimes 263 (SC).

6. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant and the Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court rightly framed the charges against the accused petitiones on the basis of the material available on record. This court in revisional power should not interfere with the order framing charges against the accused petitioners.

7. I have gone through the cases relied upon by the learned counsel and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor. But the Apex Court in Om Wati vs. State AIR 2001 SC 1507 it was held as under : “ ... it would not be safe at this stage to deprive the prosecution in proving its case on the basis of direct evidence, the statement of the deceased claimed to be admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act and the other documents including the inquest report allegedly disclosing the infliction of injuries on the person of the deceased which resulted in his death. The acceptance of the opinion of the doctors, as incorporated in the post mortem report for the cause of death of deceased being hepatic failure following viral hapatites' cannot be accepted on its face value at this stage. Therefore the order of the High Court would be illegal and liable tobe set aside.” “ The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.”

8. For these reasons the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Since main case has been disposed, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/