The Allahabad High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed that when prima-facie evidence against the accused is available, then the case cannot be held meritless. (Shivam Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.)
The bench noted that an order which is issued against the appellant based on evidence which is physical and readily available, cannot be held as ‘devoid of merit’ since such an order is legal and based on evidence. There is no irregularity or pervasiveness in such an order and any application against such an order on the grounds of merit must be rejected.
Facts of the case
The complainant namely Udayraj lodged the F.I.R. with allegation that the son of the complainant, Amarjeet who is handicapped was going to Malipur for repairing his bicycle. When he reached near Budhawa Baba temple, then one Shivam Tiwari, S/o Jagdish Tiwari started casting abusive words and when the son of the complainant objected, then the accused-appellant inflicted injury to him.
The F.I.R. was lodged against the accused-appellant under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. During investigation, the son of the complainant, Amarjeet was examined medically and injuries on his skull and limbs were found which were simple in nature caused by any hard and blunt object, duration about 2-4 days old.
The learned special judge based on this FIR passed an order against the appellant on 07.10.2020 convicting him under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and section 3 (1) (d) (dha) of SC/ST Act. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Hon’ble High Court.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the investigating officer without collecting the credible evidence wrongly submitted the charge-sheet and learned trial court without applying judicial mind convicted the accused-appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that earlier the appeal was filed by the appellant in which he got interim protection to move application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before the trial court. But the learned trial court without hearing the accused-appellant wrongly rejected the discharge application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and summoned the accused/appellant.
The main contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated due to parti-bandi. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant is a local leader of ruling party and he always doing the local politics and in the Lok Sabha election, he made pressure upon the villagers to cast their votes in favour of ruling party candidates, but the appellant opposed the activities of the complainant and denied to cast his and his family votes in favour of the ruling party.
The counsel further submitted that the complaint against the accused-appellant is frivolous and no offence is made out against the appellant. Therefore, the accused-appellant may be granted bail.
The Learned AGA opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the accused-appellant and submitted that after collecting the credible evidence, the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet. It was also transpired from the injury report, six injuries were inflicted on the body of son of the complainant, Amarjeet. Therefore, the bail application of the accused-appellant is liable to be rejected.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench noted that the investigating officer after collecting the sufficient evidence submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. On perusal of the entire record, the bench was of the view that inference cannot be drawn that no offence is made out against the appellant. Prima facie, sufficient material against the appellant is available on record and the allegation shall be tested when the prosecution witnesses are examined before the court.
The bench relied on the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 1398, wherein it was held, “Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But 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 facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”
The court also referred to the judgements in the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, JT 2010(10) SC 413 wherein it was held, “Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.”
The court applying these rationales held in the above cases, rejected the petition.
The bench noted, “What is required from the court is to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case for framing a charge against the accused has been made out. Even in a case of grave or strong suspicion charge can be framed. The court has to consider broad probabilities of the case, total effect of the evidence and the documents produced including basic infirmities, if any. If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, but the court should not weigh the evidence as if it were holding trial. Accused can be discharged only when the charge is groundless. In my opinion, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act has taken into account all the relevant materials and passed the impugned order keeping in view the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases. Therefore, the submission of the counsel for the appellant that no charge was made out has no substance.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
