This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’), whereby the Criminal Revision Petition
No.307/2018 filed on behalf of the petitioners has been dismissed.
The said criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.400/2017, whereby the trial court has
framed charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323/34 and 392/34 of IPC.
The allegation against the petitioners is to the effect that on 06.02.2016, they along with one accused person via. Raghunath Ram have stopped
complainant/respondent No.2-Ghanshyam and two other persons who were going towards on a motorcycle at Village Sangaria and thereafter looted
Rs.1,600/- and some articles from them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that as a matter of
fact, complainant/respondent No.2Ghanshyam and two other persons, who were allegedly with him at the time of incident, had refused to identify the
petitioners during the course of identification parade and also specifically stated that the petitioners and one another accused person have not looted
them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the entire charge sheet, it is clear that there is no iota of evidence available on record
against the petitioners but the trial court as well as the revisional court without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter have illegally passed
the impugned orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore prayed that the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as revisional court be set aside and
the petitioners be discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323/34 and 392/34 of IPC.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this criminal misc. petition and submitted that sufficient material is available on record against the
petitioner to frame charge for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323/34 and 392/34 of IPC and, therefore, there is no illegality in passing the
impugned orders.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.
The revisional court has taken into consideration the material/evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation in detail. The
revisional court has observed that though the complainant/respondent No.2 and two other witnesses have not identified the petitioners and another co-
accused person, however, it is not in dispute that the vehicle-Swift Car RJ-19CG 3282 involved in commission of crime was recovered from petitioner
No.2-Shera Ram. Owner of the said vehicle, in response to the notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act, has informed that the vehicle was in
possession of petitioner NO.2-Shera Ram at the relevant time. The police have also collected the call details of petitioners and one another accused
person viz. Raghunath Ram and concluded that from the call details, it is clear that the location of mobiles of petitioners was found at Sangaria on
06.02.2018 at 21:45 P.M. The police have also concluded that from the location of mobiles of the petitioners and another accused person, it is clear
that all the accused persons were together for the whole day and they visited Village Doli of Tehsil Pachpadara and thereafter Kuri Bhagtasani,
Jodhpur.
The revisional court is of the opinion that prima facie evidence of this effect is available on record that the petitioners and one another accused person
were together for the whole day and looking to the fact that the vehicle involved in the commission of crime was recovered from petitioner No.2-
Shera Ram, it cannot be said that no evidence is available against the petitioners.
The revisional court while placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State vs. Gyani Devi reported in (2000) 8 SCC
239 and Suresh vs. State reported in (2001) 3 SCC 703 has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that
the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
This Court is of the opinion that if the trial court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then charge has to be framed.
As stated earlier, the revisional court as well as trial court, after taking taking into consideration the material available on record, have arrived at a
conclusion that prima faice case for framing of charges is made out against the petitioners.
In view of above discussion, I am not inclined to interfere in this criminal misc. petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
