Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

.....section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. 1.aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2011 passed by the additional sessions judge (fast track) no.1, beawar, district ajmer, whereby the learned judge has framed the charges for offences under sections 148, 323, 325, 326, 307 read with section 149 ipc and 4/25 arms act, the petitioner has approached this court. the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the prosecution the injured, bhikam chand, had received merely six injuries out of which only two injuries, namely injuries nos. 1 & 2 are said to be grievous in nature. both the injuries, caused by the sharp-edged weapon, are on the non-vital part of the body. however, as they are not on the vital parts of the body, there is no possibility of death being caused in the ordinary nature of course. thus, the charge for offence under section 307 ipc is unsustainable. in order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of man mohan & ors. v/s. state of rajasthan [2006 (2) cr.l.r. (raj.) 1408] rajkumar bohra & anr. v/s. state of rajasthan [2011 (1) cr.l.r. (raj.) 132]. the learned public prosecutor has contended that according to bhikam chand and his guard, the petitioner and other co-accused persons attacked with lethal weapons like sword and lathis at the dead of the night. according to him, rajendra had struck him on his left and right leg with a sharp edged weapon, like a sword. moreover, according to him, mahendra had struck him on his head with lathi. the testimony of bhikam chand is further corroborated by the injury report. according to the injury report, bhikam chand had suffered two chopped and incised wounds on the left and right leg. according to the opinion expressed by the doctors, both the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, had he not received medical attention. therefore, there is sufficient evidence for framing the charge for offence under section 307 ipc. heard the learned counsel for the parties and.....