Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DAILYLAW 2499 (RAJ)

Devendra v. State of Rajasthan

2017-11-14

SABINA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 read with section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Tizara, District Alwar whereby charges were ordered to be framed against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. As per the interrogation note prepared with regard to interrogation of the petitioner, it had been stated by him that he had strangulated the deceased as some difference of opinion had occurred between them and thereafter he had set the deceased on fire. However, as per the post-mortem examination report, the deceased had not died on account of strangulation. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. Petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Arvind Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan 2015 WLC (Raj.) 735. 3. Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the petition. 4. Present case relates to murder of Ravi Sharma. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. The deceased had died on account of burn injuries. During investigation, it transpired that the petitioner and the deceased had taken liquor together and dispute arose between them on account of providing a job to the petitioner. Petitioner had pressed the neck of the deceased and had thereafter set him on fire. As per the post-mortem examination report, the cause of death of the deceased is not due to strangulation. This fact alone would not entitle to the petitioner to be discharged as it is probable that the petitioner might have pressed the neck of the deceased and the deceased may not have died, but the petitioner might have presumed that the deceased is dead and had set him on fire with the help of petrol. 5. At the state of framing of charges, Trial Court is required to see as to whether there is prima-facie sufficient material on record to frame charges against the accused. A perusal of the challan papers placed on record, reveal that there was sufficient material available on record to frame charges against the petitioner. 5. At the state of framing of charges, Trial Court is required to see as to whether there is prima-facie sufficient material on record to frame charges against the accused. A perusal of the challan papers placed on record, reveal that there was sufficient material available on record to frame charges against the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.