Jammu & Kashmir High Court
S. No. 05 vs Irshad Ahmed on 31 January, 2023
S. No. 05
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Crl R 19/2022
CrlM (1341/2022)
CrlM (774/2022
Reserved on :16.12.2022
Pronounced on :31.01.2023
Narjeet Kumar age 48 years S/O Sh. Kanshi Ram R/O ....Petitioner(s)
Thalsara Tehsil Bhalla District Doda (father of
deceased Sanjeet Kumar).
Through :- Sh. L.K. Sharma Sr. Advocate with
Sh. Mohit Kumar, Advocate.
V/s
1. Irshad Ahmed S/O Ghulam Qadir Butt R/O Altro ....Respondent(s)
Trown Tehsil and District Doda;
2. Zubair Hussain S/O Anayatullah R/o Bhasti
Shangroo Tehsil Bhalla District Doda;
3. Firdous Ahmed S/O Faiz Ahmed R/O Bhasti
Shangroo Tehsil Bhalla District Doda;
4. UT of J&K Through SHO Bhaderwah.
Through:- Sh. I.H. Bhat Advocate
7.
Sh. Akeel Wani, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
O R D E R
31 -- 01 -- 2023
1. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against order dated 22-03-2022
rendered by the court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge Doda discharging
respondents 1,2,3 from the commission of offence u/ss 302, 120-B &
201 IPC and only framing charges against them for commission of
offence u/s 304 IPC. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned
order, petitioner has questioned it's legality, propriety and correctness on
the following grounds:-
(i) that the petitioner is father of deceased Sanjeet Kumar and is
aggrieved of the impugned order dated 22-03-2022 whereby
respondents 1,2,3 have been discharged from commission of
offences u/ss 302/120-B/201 IPC and charges have been
framed against them only for commission of offence u/s 304
IPC;
(ii) that the son of petitioner namely Sanjeet Kumar (deceased)
was in love with Muslim girl namely Safa Shanaz which was
not liked by the parents of girl and especially by
respondents/accused who had threatened the son of the
2 Crl R 19/2022
petitioner to remain away from the girl failing which he will be
killed;
(iii) that on the day of occurrence on 21-07-2021 deceased was
called by Safa Shanaz on mobile phone in her house, when the
deceased reached in her house, from there he was taken to near
Bhairav Mandir in the jungle where both of them sat, accused/
respondents follow them and all the accused caught hold of the
deceased and by putting cloth in his mouth started
indiscriminated beatings to deceased with fists and kicks which
result into ruptured of his lever whereby he died on spot, after
deceased died, accused took away his body and threw in the
jungle nearby along the rock which had big fall to show that
deceased has died of a fall, accused No. 1 Irshad Ahmed give a
call to Khurshid that one dead body is lying near Bhairav
temple and even the girl did not tell the real story till she was
grilled by the investigation team and they came up with a false
story that they wanted to give a lesson to the deceased having
fallen in love to a Muslim girl;
(iv) that the police after investigation produced challan against
accused/respondents u/s 302/120-B/201 IPC which was
committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge Doda, Ld.
Addl. Sessions Judge Doda heard the arguments on the
framing of charge and discharge respondents 1,2,3 from the
charges of murder u/ss 302/120-B/201 IPC but only framed a
charge under section 304 IPC vide impugned judgment;
(v) that the trial court's impugned order/judgment is contrary to
law and facts as the trial court has sifted the evidence and
decided the case finally, accused have conspired to teach
lesson to the deceased for falling in love with Muslim girl,
with criminal intention they collected themselves and beat the
deceased mercilessly and hitting him on his vital part which
was sufficient to cause his death and when they was satisfied
that deceased had died they disposed of the body by throwing
it near the fall to hide the crime committed by them, the trial
court has wrongly discharge the accused u/s 120-B for the
reasons that liberty of an individual act could not be detained
as to who hit the deceased on his vital parts which resulted his
death, court has wrongly discharged the accused u/s 201 IPC
when there is clear evidence that accused disposed off the body
by throwing it 100/120 feet below in the jungle near a rock and
also threw his boot, mobile, socks in the bushes near the dead
body with intention to show that deceased has died on account
of fall;
(vi) that the trial court has also erred in discharging the
accused/respondents from offence of murder u/s 302 IPC when
there is sufficient evidence that accused have killed the
deceased, and the finding of trial court that if there would have
been an intention to kill the deceased they would have taken
some weapon with them but the court has ignored the fact that
all the accused were well built and they knew where to hit with
kicks and blows on the vital parts of the deceased.
2. The revision petition stands filed on 12-05-2022. Notices were issued to
the respondents. This court vide its order dated 18-05-2022, passed an
3 Crl R 19/2022
interim order that "subject to the objections till next date of hearing,
the proceedings before the trial court shall stay".
3. Respondents/accused through their counsel filed a miscellaneous
application on 25-08-2022 for modification/vacation/alteration of
interim order of stay dated 18-05-2022 passed by this court contending
therein, that by the impugned order dated 22-03-2022 passed by the trial
court respondents/accused have been discharged from offence
punishable u/s 302 IPC but have been charged for commission of
offence u/s 304 IPC; the case was fixed for prosecution witnesses but by
the interim stay order dated 18-05-2022 proceedings before the trial
court have been stayed; respondents/accused are lying in incarceration
from the date of their arrest on 31-07-2021; by the opinion of doctor
deceased has died due to shock and hemorrhage by liver rupture on the
internal surface of right lobe due to non-penetrating of blood force;
charges have been rightly framed u/s 304 IPC by the trial Court; from
the perusal of charge sheet there is no whisper or intention of the
respondents/accused to kill the deceased; only due to negligence same
has been done; motive, intention and preparation have not been
established by the prosecution; the impugned order is detailed order and
there is no sufficient evidence to prove that respondents accused have
killed the deceased intentionally; respondents/accused cannot be kept
behind the bars without any trial, and for the sake of arguments if the
petitioner succeeds, charges can be reframed by any time by the court;
state has not preferred any appeal against the impugned order whereas
petitioner who is not even complainant in the FIR is not competent to
file the present criminal revision; the powers of High Court to interfere
with order of framing charges and to grant stay is to be exercised in a
rarest of rare case only to correct a patient error of jurisdiction and not to
appreciate the matter; revision petition is not maintainable and the same
deserves to be dismissed.
4. Sh. L.K. Sharma Ld. Sr. Advocate while vehemently supporting the
averments of criminal revision petition has strenuously argued, that the
sole eyewitness of the case PW1 namely Safa Shanaz in her statement
recorded before judicial Magistrate 1st Class u/s 164-A Cr.pc on 31-09-
2021 has categorically deposed, ―that Zubair caught hold of Sanjeet and
made him to fell on the ground, Firdous gagged/closed the mouth of
Sanjeet with handkerchief, at this time Irshad also came there, Zubair
4 Crl R 19/2022
inflicted leg blow/kicks in the stomach of Sanjeet, Irshad came to her
and asked who is this person, then she told that he is her friend, during
this time blood started coming out from the nose of Sanjeet, Firdous
kept handkerchief in the mouth of Sanjeet, thereafter Irshad went
towards Sanjeet and saw that Sanjeet had died, thereafter the accused
persons got frightened and started talking each other that none should
have doubt upon them, accused Zubair pulled out shoe & socks from
feet of the deceased Sanjeet, accused told her that she should not tell
anyone that they have killed the decease otherwise they will not spare
her and her family‖. It is argued, that if the statement of sole eyewitness
PW-1 Safa Shanaz is scrutinized, it prima-facie establishes that
accused/respondents gagged the mouth of deceased Sanjeet Kumar,
inflicted leg blows/kicks in his stomach, whereby blood started oozing
out from his nose and later on deceased died on spot. It is further argued,
that the ocular version of PW-1 Safa Shanaz finds corroboration from
postmortem report which clearly depicts that deceased Sanjeet Kumar
has suffered grievous injuries on his liver, left shoulder with
scratches/abrasions/bruises on back with rupture of liver and bleeding
present in the abdomen which as per opinion of the doctor the
victim/deceased has died unnatural death and cause of death is rapture of
liver with serve abdominal bleeding. It is vehemently argued, that the
injuries inflicted by the accused/respondents on the body of deceased
were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the instantaneous death of
deceased on spot, therefore, the trial court could have framed charges
against respondents/accused for commission of offences u/s 302/120-
B/201 IPC and not for commission of offence u/s 304 IPC. It is argued,
that in the case in hand, prosecution has brought charge sheet against
respondents/accused for commission of offence of murder of one Sanjeet
Kumar u/s 302/120-B/201 IPC, the postmortem report categorically
demonstrates that the deceased has suffered injuries in his stomach
whereby liver of the deceased has ruptured and blood has remained in
the abdomen, the prosecution could not be deprived of its right to prove
that respondents/accused were guilty of offence for which the final
report has been filed against them u/s 302/120-B/201 IPC, therefore, it is
not safe at this stage that the prosecution should be deprived by the trial
court in proving its case on the basis of direct evidence and
inquest/postmortem report disclosing infliction of injuries on the person
5 Crl R 19/2022
of deceased which resulted in his death. To support his arguments, Ld.
Sr. Counsel has relied upon the judgments reported in, (i) 2022 (1) SCC
(Cri) 286 [State of Rajasthan--Appellant Versus Ashok Kumar
Kashyap--Respondent], (ii) 2021 (5) JKJ 120 [Dalip Singh--Petitioners
Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Jammu--Respondent] & (iii)
AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1507 [Om Wati--Appellants Versus State
(Delhi Administration)--Respondents].
5. Sh. I.A. Bhat Ld. Counsel for respondents 1,2,3 has supported the
impugned order by canvassing arguments, that the postmortem report
clearly depicts that injuries are not sufficient in the ordinary course to
cause death of deceased, there was no intention on part of the
accused/respondents to inflict grievous injury which could be sufficient
in the ordinary course to cause death of the deceased, mere circumstance
that the kicks/blows loaded on certain parts of body divorced from the
circumstances in which these are inflicted and in fact were aimed to
teach lesson to the deceased cannot be construed that accused had
intention to inflict the injury, as there was no enmity between the
deceased and accused party. It is argued, that the revisional powers
under Cr.pc cannot be exercised in routine and casual manner, High
Court has no power/authority to appreciate the evidence, revisional
powers could only be exercised when it is show that there is legal bar
against continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of
charges of the facts in the FIR even if taken on face value do not
constitute a offence, it is premature for the High Court to say that
material placed before the trial court was insufficient for framing
charges. To support his arguments, Ld. Counsel has relied upon the
judgments reported in, (i) 1999 Bom CR (Cri) 816 [Subrao Chintu Sathe
Versus State of Maharashtra] & (ii) 2001 (8) Supreme 172 SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA [Munna Devi -Appellant versus State of Rajasthan
& Anr. -Respondents].
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties, perused the scanned record
meticulously, bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the material
aspects involved in the case and have gone through the relevant law on
the subject matter carefully.
7. Brief facts of prosecution case as emerge out from the charge sheet laid
before the trial court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge Doda on 30-10-2021
6 Crl R 19/2022
are, that on 21-07-2021 PP Bhalla (Bhaderwah) received an information
from reliable sources that dead body of one person Sanjeet Kumar S/O
Narjeet Kumar R/O Thalsera Tehsil Bhalla District Doda is lying in the
jungle at Srounda Trown, death has been caused in mysterious
circumstances, as such proceedings u/s 174 Cr.pc were initiated. During
the inquest proceedings, dead body of deceased was recovered and sent
for postmortem at SDH Bhaderwah, after the postmortem dead body of
deceased was handed over to his family members for performing last
rites, statements u/s 175 Cr.pc were recorded, a Special Investigating
Team (SIT) was constituted under the chairmanship of Dy.SP, SDPO
Bhaderwah Mr. Abdul Gaffar Mir comprising himself and Dy.SP Hqrs.
Doda for making efforts to ascertain the case of death. During the
investigation, on the basis of CDRs and statements of witnesses recorded
it came to fore, that offences u/ss 302/120-B IPC have been committed
by (1) Irshad Ahmed S/O Ghulam Qadir Butt R/O Altro Trown Tehsil
and District Doda, (2) Zubair Hussain S/O Anayatullah R/o Bhasti
Shangroo Tehsil Bhalla District Doda & (3) Firdous Ahmed S/O Faiz
Ahmed R/O Bhasti Shangroo Tehsil Bhalla District Doda, whereafter,
FIR No.145/2021 was registered in Police Station Bhaderwah for
commission of the said offences. Statements of witnesses u/s 164-A
Cr.pc were got recorded from the court and it was established by the SIT
that deceased Sanjeet Kumar R/O Srounda Thalsara had some relation
with one Ms. Safa Shanaz. On the day of occurrence, it was the day of
Eid-Ul-Fitur, Safa Shanaz had invited deceased Sanjeet Kumar in her
house as they were friends. Both of them had relation with each other for
7/8 months and use to talk to each other on mobile phone. Deceased
Sanjeet Kumar on invitation of Safa Shanaz went in her house and left
the house for roaming and came towards Trown and when they reached
at NHW Trown under a Chinar Tree, then deceased told Safa Shanaz
that he is going to barber shop for his hair cutting. Safa Shanaz waited
the deceased under the shadow of Chinar Tree. During this time, accused
Irshad Ahmed came there where Safa Shanaz were sitting and waiting
for deceased Sanjeet Kumar, accused Irshad Ahmed told Safa Shanaz as
why she has not made any phone call to him but she replied that she was
not having his number. Accused Irshad asked Safa Shanaz to take phone
number from his father and asked her to take something from the shop
but she refused. Deceased after cutting his hairs alongwith Safa Shanaz
7 Crl R 19/2022
went towards Srounda Bhairav Mandir in Jungle. Accused Irshad
Ahmed also went towards the Bahrav Mandir in Jungle and made a
phone call to accused Zubair Hussain for coming him towards Bhairav
Mandir. Both accused persons reached near Bhairav Mandir and also
called 3rd accused Firdous who also reached on spot. All the 3 accused
after seeing the deceased with the girl talking to each other planed that
they should learn a lesson. All the 3 accused under pre-planning and
common intention went towards the deceased and the girl. Accused
Zubair Hussain asked deceased Sanjeet Kumar to sit down, he sit down
and then Zubair Hussain was angry and asked them ―why your are
coming everyday here‖ then Zubair Husain also called Firdous Ahmed,
who alongwith Irshad Ahmed was also standing near the Mandir, so that
the deceased may not be run away, accused Firdous Ahmed came on
spot and when the deceased Sanjeet Kumar saw him, he tried to run
away, accused Zubair Hussain caught hold the deceased from his shirt
and pull down him. Then the deceased made hue and cry, then Firdous
Ahmed took out a handkerchief from his pocket and dose the deceased
from his mouth, then Irshad Ahmed also came on spot and put a swear
blow on the face of the deceased. Zubair Hussain kicked the deceased on
his belly, as a result, deceased Sanjeet Kumar became unconscious, after
2/3 minutes blood started oozing from the nose of the deceased. The
deceased was struggling for life, but the accused has not left him.
Accused Firdous Ahmed put off handkerchief from the mouth of the
deceased and then the deceased died. All the accused said that boy has
died, then accused Irshad Ahmed asked Safa Shanaz, who was that boy,
she replied that he was her friend, then accused Irshad Ahmed said Safa
Shanaz that, you know that this boy is Hindu and why she come with
him and if this fact is disclosed in his village, then you will become
defamed in the village. Then all the accused threatened Safa Shanaz not
to disclose this fact to any person and go away from here. Safa Shanaz
has gone from the spot and went to her house. The accused persons have
took the dead body from the spot and took about 100/150 feet deep
inside the jungle and put the deceased and mobile phone have been
thrown near by the bushes. Then Irshad Ahmed has made a phone call to
one SPO Freed Ahmed that near Bhairo Mandir in Jungle a boy has been
fell down. All the accused persons fled away from the spot.
8 Crl R 19/2022
8. Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge Doda in his impugned order dated 22-03-2022
while discharging the accused/respondents for commission of offences
u/ss 302/120-B/201 IPC and framing charges against them only for
commission of offence u/s 304 IPC in paras 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23
observed as under:-
(19) But in this case as per the investigation conducted
by the special investigation team, there is no evidence
as the act of the accused persons is with the intention
of causing death or such bodily injury and the such
bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course to
cause death. In this case, the accused Firdous Ahmed
take out a handkerchief and put the handkerchief in the
mouth of the deceased and doused him, accused
Irshad Ahmed put a swear blow on the face of the
deceased and the accused Zubair Hussain has also
kicked the deceased on his belly. So the act of all the
accused persons and their intention is not to kill the
deceased but only to learn a lesson as per the statement
of the star witnesses Shafa Shehnaz.
(20) I have also gone through the medical evidence
collective by the special investigation team and the
postmortem report of the deceased. As per postmortem
report is as under:-
Internal injury.
Bleeding present in abdomen
----Liver is ruptured and bleeding present.
----Outer surface of liver ruptured.
Opinion
The cause of death was rupture of liver which leads to
severe abdominal bleeding (haemopper/poneum).
Death was due to shock and hemorrhage liver ruptured
on the anterior surface of right lobe due to non
penetrating blood force, injury with no external
evidence of injury or wounding.
There was also some petichial hemorrhage seen on
conjctivia and eye lids which is one of the classical
sign asphyxia.
(21) DEATH CAUSE:- Shock and hemorrhage.
Questionnaire has been sent by the SDPO Bhaderwah
to the doctor Deep Mala Kotwal Medical Officer SDH
Bhaderwah has replied the queries and opined that
regarding to your queries to postmortem report of
Sanjit Kumar S/O Narjit Kumar is as under:-
1) Opinion in regard to your first query Heptic rapture
is mostly cause by trauma. A traumatic rapture is a
rare condition. In case of blunt abdominal trauma
yes liver can be rapture. Blunt abdominal trauma
can be caused by kicking, stamping, vehicle
accident, fall and having punching. Blunt trauma is
a mechanical trauma to a body part either by
impact, injury or physical attack.
9 Crl R 19/2022
2) Opinion in regard to second query. As liver is the
largest organ in the right upper quadrant of the
abdominal cavity, because of its anatomical
location, large size and solidity, the liver is often
expose to trauma. The right lobe of liver is more
likely to be inquired than the left lobe.
The factor that influence the severity of blunt
trauma to the abdominal cavity or the size of blunt
object, strength, injured organ and the condition
when the collision occurs. This opinion has given
by the Dr. Deep Mala Kotwal.
(22) So it is clear from the medical opinion that the
death of the deceased has been caused due to rapture of
liver, which leads to abdominal bleeding and not by
dosing of the mouth. Although the accused Firdous
Ahmed has dosed the mouth of the deceased and blood
was oozed from his nose, but the death of the deceased
has not been caused due to dosing of the mouth.
Whereas, as per the evidence collected the accused
Irshad Ahmed has out a severe blow on the face of the
deceased and the accused Zubair Hussain has kicked
the belly of the deceased, but there is no evidence that
they have any intention to kill the deceased. Although,
the deceased has been died, but the circumstances
under which the deceased has been died and the
evidence collected by the SIT and stated by the star
witness Shafa Shehnaz.
The act of the accused persons is not covered the
inquest of Section 300 of IPC. The offence u/s 302 IPC
prima-facie is not made out from the investigation
conducted by the special investigation team. As such,
on the basis of all the material on the file the 302 IP is
not made out.
So far as the offence u/s 304 Culpable Homicide not
amounting to murder is concerned, as there is
sufficient evidence that the accused persons have
killed the deceased but not with intention, the offence
u/s 304 is made out as per all the material and record.
The offence /s 299 IPC Culpable Homicide is as
under:-
299. Culpable Homicide:- Whoever causes death
by doing an act with intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as
a likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that
he is likely by such act to cause death, commits
the offence of culpable homicide.
(23)So the ingredient of the section 304 IPC is
fulfilled. Accordingly, the offence under section 304
IPC is made out and all the accused have discharged
under section 302 IPC and they are charged for the
offence under section 304 IPC.
9. It is apt to reiterate here, that the solitary eyewitness of the case namely
PW-1 Safa Shanaz while recording her statement under the provisions of
10 Crl R 19/2022
Sec. 164-A Cr.pc on 31-09-2021 has categorically stated, that accused
Zubair caught hold of deceased Sanjeet and made him to fall on the
ground, accused Firdous gagged/doused the mouth of deceased Sanjeet
Kumar with handkerchief while accused Irshad also came there, wheras
accused Zubair inflicted leg blow/kicks in the stomach of deceased
Sanjeet Kumar, whereby, he died on spot. Postmortem report/autopsy
of the deceased dated 22-07-2021 under the heading S. No. 6 abdomen,
8 external & internal injuries and opinion as to case of death at pages 69,
70 & 72 read as under:-
ABDOMEN:
(i) Walls , peritoneum Liver is ruptured from one side
peritoneal cavity and bleeding is present there, outer
contents surface ruptured bleeding present.
Liver Ruptured on the anterior
(ii) Liver Gallblader surface of eight lobe measuring
(iii) Pancreas {Dimensions 7cm x 5cm deep
(iv) Spleen 1.5cm}
(v) Kidneys There was aprox. 1000ml of
(vi) Urinary Blader abdominal cavity bleeding present
(vii) Stomach (heamoperitneoum)
(viii) Intestines
External and Internal Injuries
Bruise present in the submental region (below chin)
dimensions 2cm x 1 cm and also abrasions
Bruise on left shoulder and abrasion present dia 2 cm x1cm
Small bruise over left knee and abrasion seen
Scratch marks present on back
Left side 4cm
And multiple small abrasions
Smal bruise over left lateral side of chest abrasion dim 1cm x
0.5 cm
External Injuries present over nasal bone
Bruise and collection of blood (heamot under skin over hasion
(caritusion)
Internal injury
Bleeding present in abdomen over is ruptured and bleeding,
present (+ve)
Outer surface of liver ruptured
OPINION AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH
In this case victim was declared dying unnatural death. The cause of
death was rupture of liver which leads to severe abdominal bleeding
(hoemoperitoneum), death was clue to shock and hemorrhage. Liver
ruptured on the anterior surface of eight lobe due to non-penetrating
blood force injury with no external evidence injury of wounding there
was also some petechial hemorrhage seen on conjutiva and eyelids
which is of classical sign of asphyxia. Death cause shock and
hemorrhage.
11 Crl R 19/2022
10.As per the statement of solitary eyewitness PW-1 namely Safa Shanaz
recorded u/s 164-A Cr.pc, deceased has been inflicted blows/kicks on
his mouth and stomach as well, the postmortem report categorically
corroborates eyewitnesses' account as burses, abrasions and scratches
have been found below the chin, left shoulder, left knee and on back side
of the deceased as well as left side of chest alongwith external injury
present on nasal bone. The autopsy report further depicts that outer
surface of liver has been ruptured and bleeding is present in the
abdomen. All the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report which
have been inflicted by the accused are severe in nature as the cumulative
effect of all the injuries have led to the rupture of liver and instantaneous
death of deceased on spot. The injuries mentioned in the postmortem
report prima-facie reveal that they have been inflicted by the accused
persons with intention to cause death which are imminently dangerous.
The criminal acts of respondents/accused therefore squarely fall within
the definition of Section 300 IPC culpable homicide amounting to
murder and punishable u/s 302 IPC. The finding recorded by the trial
court in its impugned order of framing charges against accused only for
commission of offence u/s 304 IPC based on the reasons that the act of
all the accused persons and their intentions were not to kill the deceased
but only to teach a lesson, is against the facts and evidence of the case.
In 1999 Bom CR (Cri) 816 [Subrao Chintu Sathe Versus State
of Maharashtra] relied by Ld. Counsel for respondents/accused, facts of
the case are that appellants/accused was charged by Court of Sessions
u/s 302/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In conviction appeal after perusing the entire evidence on record
Bombay High Court found that offences u/ss 304/34 IPC were made
against the accused for the reasoning that only a solitary knife blow was
inflicted upon the deceased who did not die on spot and the court found
that the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. Facts of the case law (Supra) are distinguishable
and inapplicable to the case in hand. In 2001 (8) Supreme 172
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [Munna Devi -Appellant versus State
of Rajasthan & Anr. -Respondents] also relied by Ld. Counsel for
respondents/accused, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that the revisional
power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in
routine and casual manner and the High Court has no authority to
12 Crl R 19/2022
appreciate the evidence and there is no legal requirement for the trial
court to write a lengthy order for framing of charges. Ratio of this
judgment is also inapplicable to the facts of the case in hand.
In 2022 (1) SCC (Cri) 286 [State of Rajasthan--Appellant
Versus Ashok Kumar Kashyap--Respondent], relied by Ld. Counsel for
petitioner, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that defense of accused is not to
be considered at the time of framing charges or discharge. In 2021 (5)
JKJ 120 [Dalip Singh--Petitioners Versus Central Bureau of
Investigation, Jammu--Respondent] relied by Ld. Counsel for
petitioner, Coordinate Bench of this Court held, that it is settled law that
while considering issue of framing charge/discharge, the court has to
examine the material placed on record by investigating officer and if the
court is of the opinion that ingredient of offence are present court can
frame charges against the accused but court is not required to conduct
mini trial for the purpose of farming an opinion. In AIR 2001 Supreme
Court 1507 [Om Wati--Appellants Versus State (Delhi
Administration)--Respondents] also relied by Ld. Counsel for
petitioner, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that the prosecution could not
be deprived of its right to prove that the accused were guilty of offence
for which final report has been filed against them. Ratios of the
judgments (Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner squarely applies
to the facts of the case in hand. In the case in hand, the charge sheet
against respondents/accused has been filed in the trial court for
commission of offences u/ss 302/120-B/201 IPC. In view of the ratio of
the judgment of ―Om Wati's case‖ (Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for
petitioner, the prosecution could not be deprived of his right to prove
the commission of offences of 302/120-B/201 IPC against
respondents/accused. In view of the aforesaid discussion, from the
evidence collected by the investigating officer I/O, a strong suspicion
exists in the mind of this court and there is a ground for presuming that
respondents/accused have committed offences punishable u/ss 302/120-
B/201 IPC and not u/s 304 IPC. The impugned order dated 22-03-2022
whereby charges have been framed against respondents/accused for
commission of offence only u/s 304 IPC in view of the evidence
collected by the I/O being perverse, is legally untenable, the same is
quashed/set aside. The trial court is directed to reframe the charges
against respondents/accused for commission of offences u/ss 302/120-
13 Crl R 19/2022
B/201 IPC and proceed with the trial of the case expeditiously. Criminal
revision petition is allowed. Interim stay dated 18-05-2022 stands
vacated. Copy of this order be forthwith provided to the trial court for
information and compliance.
11.Disposed of accordingly alongwith connected CMPs.
(Mohan Lal)
Judge
Jammu
31 .01.2023
Vijay
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
