Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Amin Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8076) on 10 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:8076]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 188/2026
1. Amin Khan S/o Rahim Khan, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Ladabas Police Station Didwana District Didwana
Kuchaman
2. Mohammed Imran S/o Mohammed Yunus, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Vijay Nagar Road Ladabas Police Station
Didwana District Didwana Kuchaman
3. Mohammed Mujahid S/o Rahmat Ali, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Khatiya Basni Tehsil Didwana District Didwana
Kuchaman
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected with
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 189/2026
Amin Khan S/o Rahim Khan, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Ladabas
Police Station Didwana District Didwana Kuchaman
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Yusuf S/o Rahim, Ladabas Police Station Didwana District
Didwana Kuchaman
3. Arif S/o Yusuf, Ladabas Police Station Didwana District
Didwana Kuchaman
4. Dilshad S/o Yusuf, Ladabas Police Station Didwana
District Didwana Kuchaman
5. Zibran S/o Yusuf, Ladabas Police Station Didwana District
Didwana Kuchaman
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat,Dy.G.A.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (2 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable-
10/02/2026
Grievance in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
188/2026-
1. By way of filing the instant revision petition under Section
438 of the BNSS, the petitioner has assailed the legality and
propriety of the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Didwana in
Session Case No. 03/2023 arising out of FIR No. 24/2022
(State v. Amin & Ors.), whereby the learned trial Court has
framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under
Sections 148, 341, 323, 323/149, 325, 325/149, 326,
326/149, 308, 308/149, 504 and 504/149 of the IPC.
Grievance in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
189/2026-
2. By way of filing the instant revision petition under Section
438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the
petitioner has assailed the legality and correctness of the
order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Didwana in Session Case No.
14/2024 arising out of FIR No. 23/2022, State v. Yusuf &
Ors., whereby the learned trial Court, while framing charges,
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (3 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
failed to frame charge under Section 308 of the Indian Penal
Code against the accused/respondents.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. Both the present revision petitions arise out of the same
incident dated 23.01.2022, which resulted in registration of
two FIRs, namely FIR No. 24/2022 and FIR No. 23/2022, at
the concerned Police Station. The incident reflects a classic
case of case and counter-case, wherein both sides have
alleged assault and attempted culpable homicide against
each other. FIR No. 24/2022 culminated in Session Case No.
03/2023, whereas FIR No. 23/2022 culminated in Session
Case No. 14/2024.
4. Vide separate but contemporaneous orders dated
17.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Didwana, charges were framed in both
matters. In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 188/2026, the
petitioners (who are accused in FIR No. 24/2022) challenge
the framing of charges including Section 308 IPC. In Revision
Petition No. 189, the petitioner (complainant in FIR No.
23/2022) assails the refusal of the learned trial court to
frame charge under Section 308 IPC against the accused
persons in that cross-case.
5. Since both petitions arise from the same transaction and
involve overlapping factual matrix, they are being decided by
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (4 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
this common order to avoid conflicting findings and to
advance the cause of judicial propriety.
OBSERVATIONS
I. Nature of the Case – “Case and Counter-Case”
Jurisprudence
6. The present matter is a paradigmatic illustration of what
criminal jurisprudence recognises as a “case and counter-
case”, both emanating from a singular transaction dated
23.01.2022. Such situations arise when two rival factions,
involved in the same occurrence, lodge separate FIRs against
each other alleging aggression and criminality on the part of
the opposite side. The substratum of both cases remains the
same occurrence, though the narrative, attribution of
culpability, and claimed role of participants differ. It is trite
and well embedded in criminal law that when two FIRs arise
out of the same incident, each representing a competing and
adversarial version, the investigative machinery and the
judicial process must approach both with equal fairness,
neutrality and independence. The investigation in such
matters must be insulated from bias or presumption in
favour of either side, because both versions are, at the
threshold, only allegations awaiting judicial scrutiny. The
existence of cross-cases is itself indicative of a mutual
confrontation, and therefore, the law requires heightened
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (5 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
judicial circumspection to ensure that the process does not
tilt unfairly in favour of one faction.
7. It is well settled through long-standing judicial precedents
that in matters involving cross-cases, certain procedural
safeguards are not merely matters of convenience but are
essential components of fair trial jurisprudence. In Nathi Lal
v. State of U.P.((1990) Supp SCC 145 ), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court laid down the guiding principle that cross-
cases arising out of the same occurrence should ordinarily be
tried by the same Judge. The Court observed that both cases
must be tried one after the other and that judgments,
though separate, should be delivered on the same day, each
case being decided strictly on the evidence adduced therein.
8. Similarly, in Sudhir v. State of M.P.((2001) 2 SCC 688 ),
the Apex Court reiterated that in case and counter-case
situations, it is desirable that both matters be tried by the
same Court so as to avoid conflicting findings and to ensure
consistency in the appreciation of evidence.
9. These settled principles include:
• Both versions must be investigated simultaneously and
independently so that neither investigation influences or
contaminates the other.
• The reports of investigation, wherever practicable, should
be placed before the competent Court at or around the same
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (6 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]time, so that the Court is apprised of the entire factual
panorama.
• The trials should ordinarily be conducted by the same
Court to ensure uniformity in appreciation of evidence.
• The recording of evidence should take place in close
proximity of time so that the judicial mind retains continuity
and coherence in assessing the testimonies.
• Judgments, though delivered through separate and distinct
decisions in each case, should ideally be pronounced on the
same day to obviate the possibility of conflicting conclusions.
These principles are not rigid technicalities but are evolved
safeguards intended to preserve the integrity of adjudication
where rival versions of the same incident compete for judicial
acceptance.
10. Besides the above enumerated safeguards, an equally
vital yet often understated aspect pertains to the judicial
perception of the demeanour of witnesses. The law
consciously entrusts the Presiding Judge with the authority
and responsibility to observe, assess and record the
demeanour of witnesses while deposing in Court. This
statutory recognition is embodied in Section 280 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (Section 315 BNSS), which reads as
under:
Section 280 – Remarks respecting demeanour of witness
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (7 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]When a presiding Judge or Magistrate has recorded the evidence of a
witnesses, he shall also record such remarks (if any) as he thinks
material respecting the demeanour of such witness whilst under
examination.
11. The significance of this provision in cross-case trials
cannot be overstated. A judicial officer, by virtue of
physically interacting with the witnesses, observing their
conduct, hesitation, confidence, body language, tone,
spontaneity or evasiveness, gains insights which cannot be
captured merely through the written transcript. In a situation
where two rival versions of the same incident are placed
before the Court, such first-hand judicial perception becomes
instrumental in discerning the real aggressor and the true
genesis of the occurrence. The procedure is designed so that
the Court does not decide solely on what is mechanically
recorded, but on the overall credibility emerging from the
witness’s presentation before the Court.
12. Equally significant is the expansive power conferred
upon the Court under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act
(Section 168 BSA) , which reads as follows:
165. Judge’s power to put questions or order production.
The judge may,in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant
facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any
witness, or of the parties, about anx fact relevant or irrelevant ; and
may order the production of any document or thing ; and neither the
parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (8 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-
examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any question:
Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this
Act to be relevant and duly proved :
Provided also that this section shall not authorise any Judge to compel
any witness to answer any question or to produce any document which
such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under
sections 121 to 131, both inclusive, if the question were asked or
documents were called for by the adverse party; nor shall the Judge ask
any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask
under section 148 or 149; nor shall he dispense with primary evidence
of any document , except in the cases hereinbefore excepted.
13. In case and counter-case situations, where two
diametrically opposite narratives are presented by rival
parties, the exercise of powers under Section 165 of the
Evidence Act (Section 168 BSA) enables the Court to pierce
through adversarial exaggerations and to clarify ambiguities.
The Court is not confined to passively recording what is
stated; rather, it is empowered to actively elicit truth, seek
clarifications, and examine surrounding circumstances so as
to render real and substantive justice. The adjudication,
therefore, cannot rest merely on what is spoken and written,
but must also consider attendant circumstances, conduct of
parties, medical corroboration, and the overall probability of
the case.
14. Thus, the conjoint operation of Section 280 CrPC
(Section 315 BNSS) and Section 165 of the Evidence
Act(Section 168 BSA) strengthens the rationale that cross-
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (9 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
cases should ideally be tried by the same judicial officer,
who, having observed the demeanour and assessed both
rival versions in their entirety, is best positioned to render a
just and balanced determination.
15. The rationale underlying the above principles is both
simple and profound. When two narratives arise from the
same occurrence, they are often mirror images, each
portraying the other side as aggressor. The truth in such
circumstances cannot be ascertained in isolation. It emerges
only through comparative and composite judicial scrutiny of
both versions. If the cases are examined independently by
different fora or at distant points of time, there exists a
tangible risk that appreciation of evidence may become
fragmented, resulting in incongruous findings.
16. Criminal jurisprudence is fundamentally anchored in the
quest for truth. The objective of a criminal trial is not to
secure conviction at all costs, nor to vindicate one faction,
but to arrive at a just and fair determination of culpability.
Therefore, in cross-cases, the comparative evaluation of
ocular testimony, medical evidence, motive, genesis of
occurrence and surrounding circumstances becomes
indispensable. Only a holistic examination can reveal
whether one side was the aggressor, whether there was
mutual assault, or whether the incident unfolded differently
from both projected versions.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (10 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
II. Whether Common Trial is Necessary When Forums
Differ
17. An important jurisprudential issue arises in situations
where one of the cross-cases discloses offences exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, whereas the counter-case
involves offences triable by a Magistrate. This procedural
divergence of forum introduces complexity in the
administration of justice. The question that arises is whether
both cases should proceed before their respective statutory
forums independently, or whether they should be
consolidated before the Court competent to try the graver
offence. The Supreme Court in Sudhir v. State of M.P.
(supra) clarified that even if one case is triable by the
Magistrate, it can be committed to the Sessions Court so
that both matters are tried together.
18.The guiding principle in resolving such situations is not
merely one of procedural convenience or docket
management. Rather, it is rooted in substantive justice and
fairness of trial. The law seeks to avoid:
• Conflicting findings by different Courts arising from the same
incident;
• Selective or compartmentalised appreciation of evidence;
• The possibility of miscarriage of justice due to divergent
conclusions regarding the genesis of occurrence or the
identity of the aggressor.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (11 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
If two Courts, acting independently, assess overlapping
evidence without the benefit of comparative scrutiny, there
exists a real risk that one Court may hold a particular party to
be the aggressor while the other Court may reach an
inconsistent conclusion. Such incongruity would not only
undermine public confidence in the justice delivery system
but would also compromise the foundational requirement of
fairness.
19.Where one case involves a graver offence exclusively triable
by the Court of Sessions, such as an offence under Section
308 IPC or any other offence falling within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the counter-case
involves comparatively lesser offences triable by a Magistrate,
prudence and judicial discipline dictate that both matters
should be tried by the same forum, namely the Court of
Sessions. The reason is that the Court of Sessions possesses
broader jurisdictional competence and is legally empowered
to try both categories of offences. Consolidating both cases
before the higher forum ensures uniform appreciation of
evidence and coherent adjudication of the entire transaction.
20.Such a course is not only prudent but legally permissible and
jurisprudentially sound. The statutory framework
contemplates that:
• A Magistrate is empowered to commit a case to the Court of
Sessions at any stage of inquiry or trial if it appears that the
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (12 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]matter ought to be tried by the Sessions Court, reflecting the
principle akin to Section 323 of the CrPC.(Section 362 BNSS)
• The Court of Sessions is fully competent to try offences which
are otherwise triable by a Magistrate, and its jurisdiction is
not curtailed in that regard.
• Conversely, a Magistrate cannot assume jurisdiction over
offences exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
Thus, from a structural standpoint, the Court of Sessions
stands as the forum capable of comprehensively adjudicating
both cases without jurisdictional impediment.
21.Therefore, in cross-cases arising from the same incident, the
forum competent to try the graver offence naturally becomes
the appropriate and logical forum for both matters. This
approach ensures that the entire spectrum of allegations,
injuries, roles attributed to parties, and attendant
circumstances are examined by a single judicial mind. Such
consolidation fosters consistency, prevents duplication of
judicial effort, and safeguards against contradictory verdicts.
It also reinforces the perception of fairness, as both factions
are subjected to adjudication under identical judicial scrutiny.
Furthermore, consolidation before a single Court ensures that
the learned Judge gets the opportunity to observe both sides,
to evaluate the witnesses of both factions in close temporal
proximity, and to assess not merely the recorded testimony
but also their conduct, demeanor and overall credibility. The
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (13 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
Judge thus gets a comprehensive opportunity to see and
evaluate both parties, which is indispensable in determining
the real aggressor and the true sequence of events.
22.It is a cardinal principle of criminal justice that justice must
not only be done but must also appear to be done. In matters
involving rival versions of the same incident, the appearance
of fairness is as vital as fairness itself. If two different Courts
were to return inconsistent findings on the same occurrence,
it would erode confidence in the adjudicatory process.
Therefore, ensuring that cross-cases are tried by the same
forum, particularly where one involves offences triable
exclusively by the Court of Sessions, is not merely a
procedural arrangement but a substantive guarantee of
justice. It upholds the credibility of the judicial process,
maintains coherence in fact-finding, and advances the larger
cause of judicial propriety.
III. In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 188/2026
(Petitioners as Accused – Challenge to Framing of
Charges)
23.The grievance here is against framing of charges under
Sections 148, 341, 323, 323/149, 325, 325/149, 326,
326/149, 308, 308/149, 504 and 504/149 of the IPC.
24.At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required
to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. The
standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court is
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (14 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
required only to ascertain whether there exists a strong
suspicion that the accused has committed the offence.
25.The degree of satisfaction required at this stage is lower than
that required for conviction but higher than mere conjecture.
26.From the record, it is evident that:
• Injuries have been caused on vital parts of the body,
including frontal and parietal regions.
• The number of injuries is not insignificant.
• Medical evidence supports the prosecution version.
27.In criminal law, intention is inferred from:
• Nature of weapon,
• Part of body targeted,
• Severity and multiplicity of injuries.
28.Blows inflicted on vital organs such as frontal and parietal
lobes cannot be treated lightly. The head is a vital part of the
human anatomy. Assault upon it raises a legitimate
presumption of knowledge that death may be caused.
29.Thus, at this stage, there exists sufficient material to justify
framing of charge under aforementioned Sections IPC.
30.It is a settled proposition that revisional jurisdiction against
an order framing charge is extremely limited. Interference is
warranted only where:
• There is patent illegality,
• No material whatsoever exists,
• The order is perverse or absurd.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (15 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
31.In the present case, the learned trial court has applied
judicial mind and framed charges based on medical and
ocular evidence. No perversity is discernible. Therefore,
there is no room for interference.
IV. In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 189/2026
(Petitioner as Complainant – Challenge to Non-
Framing of Section 308 IPC)
32.In this petition, the grievance is that although grievous
injuries were alleged, the learned trial court declined to
frame charge under Section 308 IPC.
33.Upon perusal of the record:
• Injuries sustained in this cross-case are primarily on hand
and fingers.
• No injury on vital organs is reflected.
• Medical evidence does not suggest imminence of death.
• The nature of injuries is simple or, at best, falling within
Section 325 IPC.
34.Section 308 IPC postulates the existence of intention or
knowledge that the act committed is likely to cause death. It
is well settled that mere grievous hurt does not ipso facto
attract Section 308 IPC. The provision contemplates a
situation where the act is done with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances, that if death had
ensued, the offence would have amounted to culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. In other words, the
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (16 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
injury must be of such a nature, and inflicted in such a
manner, that it can reasonably be inferred that death might
have resulted therefrom.
35.In the present case, the injuries attributed to the accused
are primarily on the hand and fingers. The material available
on record does not prima facie indicate that such injuries
were inflicted with the requisite intention or knowledge that
they were likely to cause death. Nor can it be reasonably
presumed, at this stage, that injuries on non-vital parts such
as fingers or hand were of such a character as to be
potentially fatal. Therefore, the foundational ingredients
necessary to attract Section 308 IPC are conspicuously
absent.
36.The situs of injury is a determinative factor. Injury on non-
vital parts such as hand or finger ordinarily negates intention
to cause culpable homicide unless accompanied by other
incriminating circumstances.
37.The learned trial court has considered:
• Nature of injuries,
• Medical report,
• Absence of injury on vital organ,
• Overall circumstances.
38.Merely because it is a cross-case does not mandate
symmetrical charges in both matters. Criminal liability
depends on individual conduct and evidence in each case.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (17 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
The maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” (the
act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also
guilty) governs the field.
39.In absence of prima facie material indicating intention or
knowledge to cause death, refusal to frame charge under
Section 308 IPC cannot be said to be illegal.
40.Thus, the order declining to frame charge under Section 308
IPC does not suffer from perversity or legal infirmity.
V. On Symmetry in Cross-Cases
41.It is neither a rule of law nor a principle of judicial prudence
that charges framed in cross-cases must necessarily mirror
each other in form or substance. The mere existence of a
case and counter-case arising out of the same transaction
does not create a presumption of symmetrical culpability.
Criminal jurisprudence does not proceed on notions of parity
in accusation but on the independent assessment of material
available in each case. The framing of charge is
fundamentally an evidence-oriented exercise, guided by the
prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding the
ingredients of the alleged offences. In both cases, charges
are required to be framed strictly on the basis of the material
available on the respective records. Depending upon the
evidentiary substratum, the charges in cross-cases may, in a
given situation, be similar; however, they may equally differ
where the factual foundation so warrants. Therefore,
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (18 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
symmetry in charges cannot be elevated to a legal mandate
merely because the parties are adversaries in a common
occurrence.
42.Each criminal case must stand on its own evidentiary footing.
Even where the genesis of the incident is common, the roles
attributed to the accused persons, the nature and situs of
injuries, the weapons allegedly used, the surrounding
circumstances, and the medical corroboration may differ
materially. The judicial duty at the stage of framing of charge
is to scrutinize whether, on the basis of the record pertaining
to that particular case, the essential ingredients of the
alleged offence are prima facie disclosed. The Court cannot
import facts, presumptions or inferences from the counter-
case to artificially maintain equivalence. To do so would
amount to substituting judicial analysis with mechanical
parity, which the criminal justice system does not
countenance.
43.The mere fact that in one case charge under Section 308 IPC
has been framed does not ipso facto compel the framing of
an identical charge in the counter-case. Since charges are
framed on the basis of the material available on record in
each individual case, they may legitimately vary from one
case to another. Section 308 IPC is attracted only where the
act is committed with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances, that if death were caused, the
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (19 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
offender would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting
to murder. The existence of such intention or knowledge
must be discernible from the material available in that
specific case. If the evidentiary foundation in one case
discloses assault on vital parts, multiplicity of serious
injuries, or circumstances indicating knowledge of likely fatal
consequences, while the counter-case lacks such attributes,
the differentiation in charges is legally justified. Judicial
determination at the stage of charge is not governed by
comparative symmetry but by statutory ingredients and
factual sufficiency.
44.Criminal law recognises and enforces the doctrine of
independent culpability. Liability is individualised and fact-
specific. Even in incidents involving mutual assault or group
rivalry, the degree of participation, the nature of overt acts,
and the mental element attributable to each accused may
vary significantly. The law does not operate on the principle
of retaliatory equivalence; rather, it mandates objective
evaluation of conduct and intention in each distinct
prosecution. Therefore, differentiation in the nature of
charges between cross-cases is not an anomaly but a
reflection of principled adjudication based on independent
appraisal of material. Such an approach reinforces fairness,
preserves doctrinal integrity, and ensures that criminal
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (20 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
liability is determined by evidence and statutory criteria
rather than by notions of symmetry.
VI. Conclusion
45.In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 188/2026, the framing
of charges is legally sustainable.
46.In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 189/2026, the refusal
to frame charge under Section 308 IPC is justified in view of
absence of injury on vital organs and lack of prima facie
intention to cause death.
47.Both the revision petitions are accordingly disposed of with
the following directions in order to preserve judicial
propriety, ensure consistency in fact-finding, and prevent
conflicting determinations arising from the same occurrence:
(i) Since Session Case No. 03/2023 (arising out of FIR No.
24/2022) is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and
Case No. 14/2024 (arising out of FIR No. 23/2022) is
presently Magistrate triable, it is directed that Case No.
14/2024 shall be committed to the Court of Sessions in
exercise of powers akin to Section 323 CrPC (Section 362
BNSS), so that both matters are tried by the same Court.
(ii) Upon such committal, both cases shall be tried by the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Didwana, in
accordance with the settled principles governing case and
counter-case, as discussed in preceding paras.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (21 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
(iii) The evidence in both matters shall be recorded
separately but in close proximity of time so as to maintain
judicial continuity and coherence in appreciation of
testimony.
(iv) The learned Trial Court shall ensure that while each case
is decided strictly on the evidence adduced therein, the
comparative evaluation of rival versions emerging from the
same transaction is undertaken in a holistic manner
consistent with law.
(v) The learned Presiding Judge shall, while recording
evidence, exercise the statutory authority under Section 280
CrPC (Section 315 BNSS) to record such remarks, if any,
regarding the demeanour of witnesses as may be considered
material.
(vi) The Court shall not hesitate to exercise its wide powers
under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section
168 of BSA)to elicit clarifications, remove ambiguities, and
discover the real genesis of the occurrence, subject to
statutory safeguards.
(vii) Judgments in both cases shall be pronounced separately
but preferably on the same day, in order to obviate the
possibility of incongruous findings.
48.It is clarified that each case shall be adjudicated strictly on
its own evidentiary record, uninfluenced by the result of the
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8076] (22 of 22) [CRLR-188/2026]
[2026:RJ-JD:8077] [CRLR-189/2026]
counter-case; however, the entire transaction shall be
appreciated with the judicial circumspection warranted in
matters involving rival versions of a single incident. The
learned Trial Court shall proceed expeditiously and ensure
that the trials are conducted in accordance with law and the
principles hereinabove enumerated.
(FARJAND ALI),J
9-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:50:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 07:04:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
