Allahabad High Court
Upendra Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P.And Another on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19276 of 2022
Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kishore,Manish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri Pavan Kishore, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Munne Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The applicant, before this Court, is aggrieved by the charges framed against him by an order dated 17.11.2021 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that test to frame charges that there must be more than prima facie case is not satisfied and therefore, the charges framed against him are illegal. He read out statement recorded during investigation in order to press his case that he was simply a part of panchayat where the alleged occurrence took place and there was no evidence that he participated in an unlawful assembly or did any act in prosecution of the common object of such assembly. Therefore, he cannot be vicariously liable for the criminal act committed by co-accused or who have been alleged for committing an offence for exhortation.
The above submissions have been opposed by learned A.G.A that there was strong presumption against applicant who was present at the site and there are evidence that he was also exhorted and therefore, he became a part of unlawful assembly and thus he can be held liable vicariously.
Before adverting to rival submissions referred above, relevant paragraph of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 913 are mentioned hereinafter -:
"29. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is placed before the Court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 of CrPC, the Court may also rely upon any other evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution. (See :Bhawna Bai v.Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC 217)."
In the above factual and legal background, I have carefully perused the statement of eye witness recorded during investigation. Witnesses have specifically stated that applicant was part of Panchayat wherein a dispute arose and co-accused Pankaj Singh and Vinod Singh exhorted the persons of their side including the applicant and one of co-accused shot deceased, though there was no specific allegation in regard to any over act on applicant but it cannot be denied at this stage that he was a person from the side of accused persons and a member of an unlawful assembly.
As held in Ghulam Hassan (supra), at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to place reliance upon the material produced and relied upon by the prosecution and sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused if the material collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice.
As discussed above, presence of applicant at the site is not disputed. Since the two co-accused have exhorted him also and one person died, therefore, at this stage, to say that in the absence of any over act on his behalf, he may not be considered a part of unlawful assembly which would nothing but conduct a mini trial which is not permitted at this stage by exercising inherent powers of this Court.
Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, hence, application is rejected.
Order Date :- 22.11.2022
Nirmal Sinha
(7/327 fresh cases)
