[2025:RJ-JP:24302] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 801/2005 Raghuraj Singh S/o Shri Bheroo Singh, R/o Rupaheda, Police Station Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Singh Chauhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, Dy.GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 02/07/2025 1. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 03.08.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jhalawar (Rajasthan) (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 54/2004 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Vijay Singh & Ors., whereby, learned trial Court has taken cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the present accused-petitioner-Raghuraj Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 325, 326, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that in the FIR, allegation against the petitioner is that he caused injury to Kailash Bai by sharp edged weapon 'Talwar'. Learned counsel contends that in this case Kailash Bai and Achuk Bai have been said to be injured, who have received injuries by blunt weapon. As per the FIR, Kailash Bai has suffered only one injury by sharp [2025:RJ-JP:24302] (2 of 3) [CRLR-801/2005] edged weapon in her right leg, but as per medical report no injury by sharp edged weapon was found to be inflicted. The charge against the present accused-petitioner has been made by causing injury to Kailash Bai by sharp edged weapon. Learned counsel also submits that after due investigation, the police submitted charge- sheet against two accused persons namely; Vijay Singh and Bhawani Singh and no charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner, however, learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the present petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the offences as mentioned above. Learned counsel argues that as per the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of injured Kailash Bai and Achuk Bai, they have not deposed anything against the present petitioner in their statements and in the Court statements they submitted an improved version and deposed against the present petitioner-Raghuraj Singh, however, the statements recorded before the learned trial Court of the injured Kailash Bai as PW-5 and Achuk Bai as PW-8 are not reliable, as both of the injured witnesses have stated that Raghuraj Singh has inflicted injury by sharp edged weapon i.e. 'Talwar', but the oral evidence has not been corroborated by the medical evidence given by PW-1-Dr. G.S. Chauhan and injury report Ex.P.1 of Kailash Bai. Thus, there is no cogent evidence on which cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner-Raghuraj Singh, and, therefore, the impugned order dated 03.08.2005 be quashed. 3. On the other hand learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:24302] (3 of 3) [CRLR-801/2005] 5. Considering the statements of injured-Kailash Bai as PW-5 and Achuk Bai as PW-8, who are the injured eye-witnesses of the case and even in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the presence of present petitioner has not been mentioned at the place of incident, which clearly shows that injured witnesses have given improved statements during the trial, moreover, allegation against the present petitioner is for causing injury by sharp edged weapon to injured Kailash Bai on her right leg, but no injury has been found in the leg of the injured-Kailash Bai by sharp edged weapon, therefore, in the opinion of this Court there was no sufficient material before the learned trial Court for taking cognizance against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 325, 326, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 6. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present revision petition is allowed and order of learned trial Court dated 03.08.2005 passed in Sessions Case No. 54/2004, taking cognizance against the present accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 325, 326, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is quashed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita /9