Rajasthan High Court: In a revision petition challenging the Additional Sessions Judge’s order of framing of charge under Section 3071 of the IPC, a single-judge bench of Ashok Kumar Jain, J., allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order framing charge under Section 307 IPC and discharged the petitioners from Section 307 IPC charges due to insufficient evidence. The Court noted the trial court’s disobedience and judicial indiscipline and directed the matter to be placed before the same Bench that passed the order dated 04-01-2024 for further action against the Presiding Officer concerned.
In the instant matter, the petitioners challenged the Additional Sessions Judge’s order of framing of charge under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). The petitions stated that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04-01-2024 had directed the trial court to pass a reasoned order for framing charges, however, despite the order of the High Court, the trial court again framed charges under Section 307 IPC on 27-02-2024. The petitioners argued that the charges were framed without considering the necessary ingredients for Section 307 IPC as there is no evidence showing the injuries were caused with intent to cause death or that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The petitioners contended that trial court has committed serious illegality by ignoring the High Court’s previous order.
The Court noted that the injury report of the victim indicated life-threatening injury on the mid parietal region, and a stick was recovered from the accused, suggesting prima facie evidence under Section 307 IPC. However, as per the Medical Jurist’s opinion further examination of the injury report showed that the injuries were simple and blunt, not dangerous to life. The Court opined that the trial court ignored the High Court’s order and failed to provide a reasoned decision. The Court held that the framing of charge under Section 307 IPC was not supported by the material on record.
The Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court’s order to frame charge under Section 307 IPC. The Court discharged the petitioners from the charge under Section 307 IPC but stated that the petitioners will face trial for remaining charges. Further, the Court opined that the trial court’s disobedience and judicial indiscipline warrant further action and hence referred the matter to the same Bench that passed the previous order for taking action against the concerned Presiding Officer.
[Gopal Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2258, Decided on 26-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
