Raju Lal and Another vs State of Rajasthan

R.S. Chauhan, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences u/s 308, or u/s 308/34 IPC, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

Mr. Sunil Yadav, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has vehemently contended that according to the injury report of Smt. Santosh, she had suffered an injury on her head. According to the doctor, the said injury was caused by a blunt weapon, and was not considered to be dangerous to life. At best, it can be considered to be grievous in nature. Therefore, an offence u/s 308 IPC is not made out. Secondly, different witnesses have given different version of the incident. Therefore, they are not reliable witnesses. Thirdly, the incident had occurred over a trifle matter of non-payment of electricity bill. Therefore, there was no intention to attempt culpable homicide. Hence, the framing of the charge for offence u/s 308 IPC is unsustainable.

Heard the learned Counsel and perused the impugned order as well as the copy of the charge-sheet submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

Section 308 IPC is as under:

308: Attempt to commit culpable homicide:

Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

A bare perusal of the provision clearly reveals that even if "hurt" has been caused, the case would fall within the latter part of Section 308 IPC. Admittedly, according to the medical evidence, Smt. Santosh had suffered a grievous injury on her head. Thus, "hurt" was caused to her. Thus, prima facie there is sufficient evidence to show that an offence u/s 308 IPC has been committed.

The consequence of different narration of different facts by different witnesses would have necessarily to be assessed by the learned trial Court. At the initial stage of framing of the charge, it is not for this Court to comment on the same. After all, the learned trial Court is concerned only with seeing whether a strong prima facie case is made out against the accused-Petitioners or not. Therefore, at the initial stage, the learned trial Court would not be justified in minutely examining the evidence produced by the prosecution and to assess the impact of the contradictions which may exist in the statements of the different witnesses.

Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.