Suraj Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3112 Jhar

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   Criminal Revision No.153 of 2020
                                            ....

1. Suraj Kumar Yadav

2. Raj Kumar

3. Sanny Kumar

4. Raj Kumar Goswami .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ....

                CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Petitioners            : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Adv.
                For the State                  : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP.
                                               ....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

05/25.08.2021 Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored for the time being.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The instant application has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No.849 of 2019 arising out of S.T. No.380 of 2019, by which application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.

It has been alleged against the revisionists that he has abducted the father of the informant, who has been recovered by the police while they were taking away the victim. Magistrate has taken cognizance and thereafter the matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions. The revisionists has filed a petition under 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge taking plea that there is contradiction in the statement of witness vis a vis F.I.R. Further the incident is also doubtful as there is no sufficient material to prove the crime of abduction.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has relied upon the judgment reported in 2005 (I) SCC 568 in the case of State of Orissa Vrs. Debendra Nath Padhi. It has been submitted that the quality and quantity of the material collected by the police has to be evaluated during trial and it cannot be evaluated at the stage of framing of charge.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the record, it appears that the police after investigation has found the sufficient material to the effect that crime has been committed and the present revisionists are involved in the commission of crime and there is a witness also whose statement has been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

It is trite that at the time of framing of charge, the trial court is not supposed to pre judge the issue and is not empowered to evaluate the material i.e. admissibility of the evidence, sufficiency of the evidence etc. In view of above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present criminal revision, accordingly the same is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/