Maina Devi vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh in Sessions Case No. 04/2018 whereby charges have been framed under Section 304 IPC and 3/25, 3/27 of Arms Act against the respondent no.2 Nopa Ram.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has framed charges against the respondent no.2 under Section 304 IPC and 3/25, 3/27 of Arms Act but the trial court has not framed charges against the respondent no.2 for offence under Section 302 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 intentionally fired gunshot at Ram lal due to which he expired, therefore, the offence under Section 302 IPC is clearly made out against the respondent no.2, however, the trial court without assigning any cogent reason framed the charges against the respondent no.2 only for offences under Section 304 IPC and 3/25, 3/27 of Arms Act. Therefore, the impugned order to the extent of not framing charge under Section 302 IPC is illegal and same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that after thorough investigation, challan was presented for the offence under Section 304 IPC and 3/25 of Indian Arms Act. All the prosecution witnesses clearly mentioned that respondent no.2 used to look after the fields and used to carry fire-arm which accidentally hit the deceased. He further submits that there is no motive or intention on the part of the respondent no.2, therefore, the trial court has rightly framed the charges for offence under Section 304 IPC as well as for offence under Section 3/25, 3/27 Arms Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the order of framing charge passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity and all other questions raised in regard to the present case are to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage.

I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.

In this case, all the prosecution witnesses clearly mention that respondent no.2 Nopa Ram used to look after the fields of the villagers as the 'blue bull' used to destroy the crops, therefore, the fire accidentally hit the deceased and there was no motive or intention on the part of the respondent no.2 to kill the deceased. Since at the stage of framing of charge, only the charge-sheet and evidence collected during investigation which has been produced alongwith the charge-sheet is required to be considered, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.