Arjun Vs. State of Rajasthan.

Arjun vs State of Rajasthan.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 19, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920447

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/920447
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Narendra Kumar Jain, J.
Decided On: Jul 19, 2011
Case Number: Case No. CRLR 816 of 2011
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302, 201; Evidence Act - Section 27; Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 227 and 228

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arjun

Advocate Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv

Respondent

State of Rajasthan.

Advocate Ms. Rekha Madnani, Adv

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302, 201; Evidence Act - Section 27; Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 227 and 228

Excerpt

.....impugned order dated 14.03.2011 passed by trial court, whereby it was ordered that a charge under section 302 and 201 i.p.c. be framed against the petitioner. 3. submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is not challenging the order framing charge under section 201 i.p.c., but according to him, there is no evidence to connect the accused-petitioner with the offence under section 302 i.p.c., therefore, order framing charge against the petitioner under section 302 i.p.c. is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. learned public prosecutor submitted that soon after arrest of the petitioner, he gave an information, under section 27 of the evidence act, about knife and mobile used by co-accused harish and the same were recovered in pursuance of information given by present petitioner arjun, therefore, it was contended that there is prima-facie evidence to proceed against the petitioner and this is not a fit case to discharge the accused-petitioner from the offence under section 302 i.p.c. 5. i have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined impugned order as well as challan papers placed on record alongwith memo of revision petition. 6. the accused-petitioner was arrested and he furnished an information about knife and mobile and the same were recovered in pursuance of the information furnished by him. apart from above, there is statement of one prosecution witness namely sunil, recorded under section 161 cr.p.c. in these circumstances, it cannot be said there is no evidence at all against the petitioner to frame charge against him for the offence under section 302 i.p.c. 7. hon'ble apex court in state of m.p. v. s.b. johari & others, reported in (2000) 2 scc 57, considered scope of section 227 and 228 cr.p.c. and held that at the time of framing of charges, the court is required to see whether prima-facie there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; it cannot appreciate the evidence to.....

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging impugned order dated 14.03.2011 passed by trial court, whereby it was ordered that a charge under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. be framed against the petitioner.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is not challenging the order framing charge under Section 201 I.P.C., but according to him, there is no evidence to connect the accused-petitioner with the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., therefore, order framing charge against the petitioner under Section 302 I.P.C. is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that soon after arrest of the petitioner, he gave an information, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, about knife and mobile used by co-accused Harish and the same were recovered in pursuance of information given by present petitioner Arjun, therefore, it was contended that there is prima-facie evidence to proceed against the petitioner and this is not a fit case to discharge the accused-petitioner from the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

5. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined impugned order as well as challan papers placed on record alongwith memo of revision petition.

6. The accused-petitioner was arrested and he furnished an information about knife and mobile and the same were recovered in pursuance of the information furnished by him. Apart from above, there is statement of one prosecution witness namely Sunil, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, it cannot be said there is no evidence at all against the petitioner to frame charge against him for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari & Others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 57, considered scope of Section 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. and held that at the time of framing of charges, the court is required to see whether prima-facie there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; it cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive at a conclusion in the matter at this stage.

8. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2011 Same Parties Arjun vs State of Rajasthan. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Narendra Kumar Jain, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302, 201; Evidence Act - S...