Jharkhand High Court
Dominic Samson vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 August, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.1148 of 2019
Dominic Samson
@ Domnik Samson ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.02, A.P.P
---------
The matter was taken up through Video
Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no
objection with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
---------
th
05/Dated: 12 August, 2021
1. The present revision application has been filed against
the order dated 30.07.2019, passed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge - VI, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No.402 of
2017, arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No.66 of 2016,
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1348 of 2016, whereby the
prayer for discharge of petitioner has been rejected.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is no sufficient materials on record
against this revisionist to frame the charge as the police has
relied only upon the confessional statement of the co-accused.
It has further been argued that the alleged evidence of the co-
accused is not admissible, and as such, his evidence cannot
be taken into account while rejecting the prayer for discharge
of the petitioner. On the above facts, it has been submitted
that since there is no sufficient materials on record
connecting this revisionist with the alleged crime, as such,
the present revision petition should be allowed and the
impugned order dated 30.07.2019, may be set aside.
3. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer.
4. Having heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P and on perusal of the impugned order, it
appears that the police after investigation submitted the
charge-sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused for
the offence under Sections 302/ 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, the trial
court has relied upon the documents submitted by police
under Section 173 of Cr.P.C and prima facie found that the
petitioner along with other co-accused have committed the
offence under Section 302/ 120(B)/ 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The court below has
also relied upon the the statement of the witness, Priya Devi,
wife of the deceased, made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
As per the mandate of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs.
Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, reported in (2019) 20 SCC
539, it is well settled that admissibility and non-admissibility
of the evidence is not required to be looked into at the stage
of framing of charge, and it can be looked into during the
trial. There is enough materials on record for formation of
strong suspicion against this revisionist.
5. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit
in the present revision application. Accordingly, the same is,
hereby, dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
