Allahabad High Court
Suryapratap @ Sonu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?RESERVED ON 04.12.2023
DELIVERED ON 03.01.2024
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:719
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2023
Revisionist :- Suryapratap @ Sonu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ghan Shyam Das
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not want to file the counter affidavit.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 24.3.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Special Session Trial No. 364 of 2022 (State vs. Suryapratap @ Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2022 under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C., Police Station Bewar, District Mainpuri whereby the charges have been framed against the revisionist-accused.
The main grievance of learned counsel for the revisionist is that learned Sessions Judge has erroneously framed the charge without due application of judicial mind under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The revisionist was only assigned the role of driving the motorbike. Apart from that, the injured sustained a single fire injury and the role of firing has specifically been assigned to the co-accused and not to the revisionist. No other allegation has been levelled against the revisionist except the driving of motor bike by which the accused persons reached the spot. The nature of the fire arm injury also does not corroborate with the prosecution version. The recovered bullet was also not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The allegations levelled against him are vague and absurd and are general in nature and not supported with any documentary evidence.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer and had submitted that it is a crystallised judicial view that at the stage of framing of charge , the Court has merely to consider whether prima facie case is made out or not and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held that at the stage of Section 228, the Court is not concerned with the proof, but with the strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence and the final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage of framing of charge.
The ambit of scope of exercise of power under Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code are fairly well settled. It has been consistently held that the standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. 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.
Thus, no mini trial is contemplated and only probative value of material has to be gone into to see if there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused.
Upon considering the submissions advanced, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order impugned.
The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.1.2024
Puspendra
