Allahabad High Court
Satendra And 11 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 April, 2023
Bench: Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1916 of 2023
Revisionist :- Satendra And 11 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- R.K.Paramhans Singh,Devi Prasad Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and puresed the material on record.
2. Present criminal revision has been moved on behalf of the revisionists challenging the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh, in S.T. No.133 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.36 of 2020 (State Vs. Satendra and others), under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 427, IPC, Police Station Mahrajganj, District Azamgarh, by which the learned court below rejected the discharge application dated 15.07.2022 of the revisionist and framed charges under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 427, IPC.
3. It is submitted that learned trial court framed the charges against the revisionists without any piece of evidence collected by the investigating officer, which not made out offence under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 427, IPC. Learned trial court has not taken into consideration that the version of FIR itself discloses no motive or intention to cause the death of deceased and framed the charge under section 302 IPC. It is also submitted that learned trial court did not take into consideration the material evidence which reveals nine injuries caused by nineteen accused, in which only one blow of injury in found on the head of deceased, which shows that there was no intention to cause the death of deceased. It is also submitted that one fire short is revealed in the FIR, however no gun short injury found in the postmortem report as well as inquest report. No specific role is assigned to any of the revisionists and general allegations have been levelled. Learned trial court has not given any benefit of exception of section 300 IPC to the revisionists, therefore, the impugned order dated 10.01.2023 is liable to be set-aside.
4. Learned AGA has opposed and submitted that fire arm is not used as per prosecution version and the rods, lathi & danda are said to have been used in the alleged incident and after the incident the accused swayback the fire arms in their hands and took to their heels, therefore, there is no question of any fire arm injury. Learned AGA for the State has drawn the attention of the Court towards the inquest report and postmortem report and submitted that one blow on the head of deceased was so fatal that he went in Coma and later on died due to injury sustained by him during the alleged incident.
5. From the perusal of impugned order dated 10.01.2023 it transpires that learned trial court considered that 19 accused assaulted the deceased and postmortem report shows nine injuries on the dead body of deceased and cause of death is shown hemorrhage and shock. It is also mentioned in the impugned order dated 10.01.2023 that during the investigation sufficient evidence was found against the present revisionist and charge sheet was submitted as such by the investigation officer. Learned trial court relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Odisha Vs. Devendranath Pani" 2005(51) A.C.C. 209, held that at the stage of framing of charge the truthfulness of evidence on record is not to be taken into consideration. At the stage of framing of charges only prime-facie offence evidence collected by the investigation officer is to be taken into consideration.
6. During the argument learned counsel for the revisionists stated that at most the charge against revisionists can frame under section 304(2) IPC and not under section 302 IPC. It is not the case of revisionists that no charge can be framed against the revisionists altogether.
7. If revisionists believe then the charge should be framed under the sections punishable with lessor imprisonment, the plea can be taken under third way itself and it is open for the trial court to alter the charge at any stage of trial appropriately depending on the material that is brought before it in the form of evidence. If trial court even after the conclusion of trial comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to charge the respondent for the offence punishable with lessor punishment, that can be altered to the extent.
8. The truthfulness, sufficiently and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of the charge can be done only at the stage of trial and at the stage of framing of the charge, trial court is not expected to weigh the truthfulness and correctness of the material collected by the investigating officer during investigation. At the stage of framing of charge no finding of none existence of material to frame charge can be given by trial court. If trial court finds after recording of evidence that charge should be altered, it is open for the trial court to alter the charge or to punished the accused under the sections which are proved against the accused.
9. In view of the above discussions, any interference at this stage would not fulfill the cause of justice and it would lead only to delay the course of justice. Therefore, the Court does not find any ground to interfere the order of trial court, hence the revision is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
(Renu Agarwal,J.)
Order Date :- 21.4.2023
VKG
