[2025:RJ-JP:14215] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2317/2019 1. Moolchand Jat S/o Sagar Ram Aged About 43 Years, R/o Govli, Police Station Mandrela Jhunjhunu Raj. 2. Sachin @ Liliya S/o Moolchand Jat, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Govli, Police Station Mandrela Jhunjhunu Raj. 3. Smt. Sajjana Devi W/o Moolchand Jat, R/o Govli, Police Station Mandrela Jhunjhunu Raj. ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Raju Devi Wife of Tarachand, Resident of Village Govli, Tehsil- Mandrela, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. David Mehla For Respondent(s) : None Mr. B.L. Nasuna, Dy. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/03/2025 REPORTABLE 1. Instant S.B. Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellant- accused Moolchand Jat, Sachin @ Liliya and Smt. Sajna Devi aggrieved from order of charge dated 31.10.2018 and 02.02.2019 in Sessions case No. 231/2017 arising out of FIR No. 49/2017 P.S. Mandrela, District Jhunjhunu whereby learned Trial Court after considering the material on record has framed charge under Sections 307, 323, 325, 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 2. Learned counsel for appellants while relying upon grounds of appeal would submitted that complainant- Raju Devi has filed an FIR alleging that a group of persons assaulted and caused injury [2025:RJ-JP:14215] (2 of 10) [CRLAS-2317/2019] to victim- Tara Chand. He further referred that on basis of this report FIR was registered under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 379 IPC but without report any grievous injury and treatment by any of Government Medical Officer, a charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC was filed, by police. He further referred the statement of witness Raju Devi, Kapil Dev, Raghunath, Choturam and submitted that all these are family members and interested persons and none of them is an independent eye-witness. He further referred the statement, medico legal report and MLC report and submitted that Dr. Manish Sharma has neither treated injured nor examined the victim just after the assault but the prosecution relied upon his report to charge under Section 307 IPC. He further submitted that the injured were treated at Hisar, Haryana wherein a racket is operating who prepares the fake reports of grievous injuries after receiving some gratification. He also referred the treatment record and report prepared by private doctor and submitted that these reports are not a medico legal evidence and same cannot be relied upon to charge appellants under Section 307 IPC. He further submitted that there was no evidence to show any meeting of mind or intention of the appellants to inflict a deadly injury upon injured- Tara Chand. He further referred and relied upon judgment in case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs. CBI (2020) 2 SCC 768, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Patel (1979) 3 SCC 4 and submitted that a trial Court cannot act as a post office while framing the charge against the appellant. He further relied judgment in case of Jage Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 366, Ratan Singh Vs. State of M.P. (2009) 12 SCC 585 and submitted that in order to frame charge under Section 307 [2025:RJ-JP:14215] (3 of 10) [CRLAS-2317/2019] IPC, it is necessary that the intention of appellants must be established with overt act to attract charge under Section 307 IPC. At last he referred the judgment in case of Jeetu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Criminal Revision No. 250/2019, Surendra Panwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2018 (3) Cr.LR. (Raj.) 1602 and Harsh Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision No. 484/2018 and submitted that this Court has quashed the charge when sufficient ingredients are not available to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. Complainant was informed but none present on behalf of complainant. 4. The facts giving rise to instant appeal in brief are that complainant- Raju Devi (wife of victim Tara Chand) has lodged a report against Sachin, Sandeep, Mool Chand, Sajjna, Kishore and others for assaulting his husband with pre-meditated plan resulting into deadly injuries. On basis of this report FIR No. 49/2017 was registered on 17.05.2017 under Sections 143, 341, 323, 379 IPC and Section 3(i)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. During investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded and medical treatment record along with injury reports were procured by Investigating Officer. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has found that injured Tara Chand was treated at Sahara Hospital, Hisar (Haryana) and on basis of these reports, an opinion was procured from Medical Officer, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu and Section 307 IPC was added by the police who filed a charge- [2025:RJ-JP:14215] (4 of 10) [CRLAS-2317/2019] sheet under Section 341, 323, 325, 307, 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (s), 3(ii)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 5. Learned Trial Court while considering the submission of both the parties has directed to frame charge against the petitioners which includes charge under Section 307 IPC, thus, the appellants were charged under Section 341, 323, 325, 307, 34 IPC and 3(1) (s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Aggrieved from framing of charge by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act Cases in sessions case No. 231/17, instant criminal appeal is preferred by appellants. 6. During course of argument, learned counsel for appellants concentrated more on framing of charge under Section 307 IPC. He also stressed that in case Section 307 IPC is not made out then the charge under SC/ST (POA) is also not made out. 7. The principles of law at the stage of charge were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. :(1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 398. It was held that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima [2025:RJ-JP:14215] (5 of 10) [CRLAS-2317/2019] facie case whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. The test to determine a prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. 8. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. 9. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191 and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023 INSC 555), wherein it was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and / or at the stage of discharge application. [2025:RJ-JP:14215] (6 of 10) [CRLAS-2317/2019] 10. After filing of charge-sheet when the matter is taken-up by Special Court for consideration of material forwarded by police then firstly duty lies upon the Trial Court to consider application of discharge as provided under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. (Now Section 250 of BNSS) and after considering record and documents and hearing the submission of both the parties, if the Court finds that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused then the Court may discharge the accused. The aim is to ensure that an innocent person or where there is not sufficient evidence not subjected to a lengthy trial as provided under the Cr.P.C. or B.N.S.S. 11. The Trial Court is duty bound to evaluate the material forwarded by the prosecution before considering the case for discharge. The Court needs to determine, if there are sufficient ground or strong suspicion to proceed further against the accused but if the material is not sufficient to proceed further then the Court has no option except to discharge. Herein, the Trial Court has framed charge under Section 307 IPC besides other provision under the IPC but they are not very serious. Section 307 of IPC deals with attempt to commit murder. Herein, the basic objection raised by learned counsel for petitioners is that the injured was treated at Hisar (Haryana) in a private hospital and record of private hospital is not a medico legal evidence. 12. This issue was raised before learned Trial Court and in impugned order the basic purpose of any criminal justice system was considered, which is not to punish victim or injured. In case, any one suffered injuries due to act of another person then no [2025:RJ-JP:14215] (7 of 10) [CRLAS-2317/2019] provision of law prescribe that the injured should be treated at any Government hospital or at Government facility. Similarly, there is no law which provides that if any injured is treated or undergone treatment in any private hospital then record of private hospital may not be considered for medico legal purpose. The only question is authenticity of record for treatment and nature of injuries sustained by injured but all these aspects are subject- matter of trial, therefore, no objection can be raised at the stage of charge. 13. Section 307 IPC provides that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that he or she by that act causes death and he would be guilty of murder, he is liable to be charged under Section 307 IPC. The provision is in two parts and firstly when there is no injury and secondly when an injury is caused. Herein, this case the Court has to look into the material placed on record and draw a prima facie conclusion whether same is sufficient to warrant a charge under Section 307 IPC or not. 14. The counsel has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Jage Ram Vs. State of Haryana (supra) wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the various judgments has affirmed conviction and sentence of second appellant in case of Jage Ram Vs. State of Haryana (supra) under Section 307 IPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has placed reliance upon judgment in case of State of M.P vs Kashiram & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 26 wherein other judgments were referred and it was held that whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be [2025:RJ-JP:14215] (8 of 10) [CRLAS-2317/2019] caused, is a question of fact and would depend upon facts of a given case. In case of Ratan Singh Vs. State of M.P. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed a criminal appeal filed by complainant-victim and set aside the order of the High Court wherein the Court has interfered under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. while quashing the charge under Section 302 or 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Clearly, both these judgments are not applicable to help present appellant rather principle of law as mentioned in both the judgments are sufficient to buttress the argument of learned Public Prosecutor. This Court has already considered law relating to framing of charge after considering the judgment in case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs. CBI (supra) and we can a Court is not a post office. 15. Having considered the fact that on the basis of treatment record, injury report, opinion and further explanation by Dr. Manish Kumar, the police has added Section 307 IPC. Statement of Dr. Manish Kumar is also recorded by police and same is also part of record which indicate that when injured was brought for treatment just after assault, he was referred to superior hospital as the facility for treatment was not available at the Chirawa Hospital. The opinion clearly indicate that the injured has sustained grievous injury on skull (fracture of left temporal parietal bone). The opinion given by Medical Officer clearly indicate that said injury was dangerous to life. 16. At the stage of framing of charge, a roving inquiry is impermissible and based on material available on record, the Trial Court has framed charge under Section 307 IPC. Now, comes the [2025:RJ-JP:14215] (9 of 10) [CRLAS-2317/2019] question whether the statement of family members can be relied to frame a charge under Section 307 IPC. Herein, the material collected by police indicate that after receipt of intimidation to register FIR, the police has collected the evidence available to justify charge-sheet against the petitioners. If any injury is caused by any person or group of persons and only family members or close relatives have witnessed the incident then they are competent witnesses. The law in our country does not prescribes any special qualification for witness, therefore, objection like interested witnesses at this stage of charge is impermissible. 17. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Jeetu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), Surendra Panwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. and Harsh Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has discharged the accused from charge under Section 307 IPC. It is apparent from order in case of Jeetu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) that the injuries were trivial and superficial and moreover, there was no intention. In case of Surendra Panwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) the complainant has not received any injury and morever the intention or knowledge required for commission of offence was also not established. In case of Harsh Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) a Co-ordinate Bench after considering the material has expressed that sufficient material is not available to frame charge under Section 307 IPC. Thus, aforesaid judgments are not applicable in the instant case. [2025:RJ-JP:14215] (10 of 10) [CRLAS-2317/2019] 18. Having considered the entire material on record, it is apparent that the injured has sustained grievous and life- threatening injury on vital part of the body. Moreover, the injured belongs to SC community, so provision SC/ST (POA) Act is applicable. The evidence on record is sufficient to frame a charge and the involvement and applicability of Section 34 is subject- matter of trial. All the three appellants were named in FIR and explained their role and involvement by witnesses in their statements, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error while framing the charge against the appellants. 19. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the instant appeal sans merits and liable to be dismissed. 20. As a result of which, instant S.B. Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed and order of charge against the appellants is hereby affirmed. 21. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /173-S