Dheeraj Kumar Madhesiya vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 17835 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143014
 
Court No. - 79
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1071 of 2023
 
Revisionist :- Dheeraj Kumar Madhesiya
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Yadav,Awadhesh Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna in S.T. No.675 of 2021 (State Vs. Dheeraj Madhesiya), arising out of Case Crime No.192 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Hata, District Kushinagar, by which discharge application filed on behalf of revisionist was rejected.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that some quarrel has taken place in between the revisionist and injured Ravi Baranwal on 7.5.2021 and an F.I.R. has been lodged against the revisionist by father of injured which was registered as Case Crime No.192 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. It is further submitted that Investigating Officer without conducting fair investigation had submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionist. It is further submitted that there are severe contradictions in the statements of witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer and no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist. The revisionist has moved an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge which was rejected by the impugned order.

5. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that learned trial court had passed a detailed order discussing the evidence and materials collected by the Investigating officer during investigation and found that grievous injuries were received by the injured and prima-facie satisfied that offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist. It is further submitted that from the evidence and materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is clearly made out against the revisionist and the discharge application has rightly been rejected by learned court below.

6. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. For ready reference Section 227 Cr.P.C. is quoted herein below:-

"227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

8. From bare perusal of Section 227 Cr.P.C., that if upon consideration of Police report and documents collected during investigation and after hearing accused as well as prosecution the Court found that there is no sufficient ground for prosecution against the accused, the Court can discharge the accused. The ambit of Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the power vested in it. The said provision is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2008 2 SCC 561. The relevant paragraph No.11 is quoted herein below:-

"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."

9. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan and others reported in 2014 (11) SCC 709, has held that at the time of deciding the application for discharge, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and consider the entire evidence and material which are available on record. Paragraph 29 of the judgment of Suresh Rajan(supra) is quoted below:-

"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post-office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of M.P. vs. Mohanlal Soni reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held that at the time of framing of charges the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground against the accused or not and the Court is not required to consider the evidence in detail and appreciate evidence to conclude that there are sufficient materials for conviction of the accused. Only prima facie satisfaction of learned Magistrate is required at the time of framing of charges. Relevant paragraph 7 is quoted herein below:-

"7. The crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused."

11. It is well settled law by Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of cases that at the time of framing of charges the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient report in proceeding against the accused or not. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and reach at the conclusion for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then the charge is to be framed.

12. Considering the evidence and materials which are available on record, it is apparent that the F.I.R. has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the revisionist with the allegation that the revisionist has caused the grievous head injuries to his son and the Investigating Officer after collecting evidence had submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C. Learned trial court had summoned the revisionist for facing trial. The discharge application filed by revisionist under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected by learned trial court by a detailed order dated 23.12.2022 after recording prima-facie satisfaction that there are sufficient evidence against the accused-revisionist and also there are sufficient evidence for framing the charges against the revisionist under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C. and has rightly rejected the discharge application filed by revisionist.

13. No ground for interference is made out. The revision is dismissed, accordingly.

14. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

Order Date :- 18.7.2023

Kpy