CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Bhanwar Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Ors

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 6 December 2019 · Citation: (2019) 12 SC CK 0173

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.M. Khanwilkar, J · Dinesh Maheshwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307, 149
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No.1849 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 342 words
1.

Delay condoned.

2.

Leave granted.

3.

Heard counsel for the parties.

4.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B.Criminal Revision No. 1278/2017, whereby the High Court quashed the charge framed against the private respondent(s) by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the sole consideration that the Doctor in a subsequent communication dated 03.08.2016 had noted that injury at serial No.3, which was described as 'severe sharp' earlier, be considered as 'simple sharp' injury.

5.

The fact remains that the same Doctor had issued certificate on earlier occasion dated 20.07.2016. The circumstance in which the Doctor was persuaded to issue the subsequent communication dated 03.08.2016, in our opinion, is a matter for trial, especially when the injured witness is going to be examined by the prosecution to explain the circumstances including the injury in question. Moreover, the subsequent communication issued under the signature of the same Doctor on 03.08.2016 does not modify other injuries described in the previous communication dated 20.07.2016.

6.

Be that as it may, these are all matters to be examined at the trial and cannot be the basis to quash the charge framed under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the impugned judgment cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. The same is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the trial Court framing stated charge against the private respondent(s) is restored with further direction to the trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

7.

We make it clear that none of the observations in this order or the order passed by the High Court will come in the way of either party and the trial must proceed on its own merits on the basis of material adduced before that Court.

8.

The appeal and pending applications are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.