Nemichand & Ors. v. State & Anr.

The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners to challenge the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagaur whereby the learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner No. 1 - Nemi chand @ Nema Ram and petitioner NO. 2 - Suresh for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 and in alternative 323/34, 325 and in alternative 325/34, 320 and in alternative 302/34 I.P.C and against the petitioner No. 3 for offence under Section 341, 460 and 302 and 302/34 I.P.C

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the FIR No. 361/2013 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 451 I.P.C and during investigation deceased Onkar Ram died on 02.07.2013, therefore, the police filed challan against accused petitioners Nemaram and Suresh for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 302/34 I.P.C and against Narshi Ram gave negative report.

After committing the case for trial the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur by the concerned Magistrate, an application was filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C for taking cognizance against Narshi Ram and learned trial Court vide order dated 24.10.2013 allowed the said application filed by the complainant and took cognizance against Narshi Ram also.

According to learned counsel for the petitioners, after taking cognizance against Narshi Ram, the arguments were heard for framing charges and after hearing arguments, learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences as aforesaid vide order dated 17.12.2013

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the trial Court has committed a gross illegality while framing charges under Setion 302 I.P.C agaisnt the petitioners because the injury which is said to be caused by the petitioners was not cause of death in ordinary course of nature. It is also argued that for the incident took place on 28.6.2013, FIR was registered for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 451 of I.P.C and on the same day the deceased Onkar Ram was examined at Govt. Hospital, Nagaur and as per the injury report, all the injuries were simple in nature except one grievous injury on right thigh of deceased. The deceased Onkar Ram was 75 years old and due to grievous injury on right thigh, he was admitted in the private hospital, Yash Aman Hospital, Nagaur where during treatment, he died on 02.07.2013 The counsel for the petitioners submits that the deceased was not died due to the injury caused in the incident but in fact deceased died due to negligence on the part of the doctors of the private hospital but at the time of framing charge, the trial Court did not consider the above aspect of the matter and erroneously framed the charges for offence under Sections 302 I.P.C, against the petitioners, therefore, no sustainable in law.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the charge under Section 302 I.P.C was framed on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation and there was no question to assess the evidenciary value for the purpose of framing the charge under Section 302 I.P.C, therefore, the order impugned does not require any interference.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that for framing charge, the evidence collected in the investigation is required to be taken into considered by the trial Court. Admittedly in this case, the injuries were inflicted by the petitioners to the deceased on 28.06.2013 and as per the petitioners themselves, the deceased Onkar Ram was 75 years of age and due to the grievous injury on right thigh, he was admitted to the hospital on 29.06.2013 where he died on 02.07.2013

In view of above, at this stage, it was not proper for the trial Court to assess the evidence for the purpose of discharging the petitioners for charge under Section 302 I.P.C because during the investigation, it is found that deceased died due to injuries sustained to him on 28.06.2013 In view of above, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in the order impugned. Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.