Karamchand Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3198 Jhar

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Cr. Revision No. 1015 of 2022
1. Karamchand Mahto.
2. Sanjay Mahto.
3. Dharmendra Kumar Mehta
   @ Dharmendra Mahto.                    ...    ...Petitioners
                     Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Shivlal Mahto                           ... ...Opp. Parties
                     --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

--------

For the Petitioners :Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the State :Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.

For the O.P.No.2 :Mr. Manoj Kumar-II, Advocate

--------

Order No. 07/dated 28.08.2023

Learned Counsel Mr. Arun Kumar on behalf of petitioners

and on behalf of O.P.No.2 and learned A.P.P. on behalf of the

State are present.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

in this case the F.I.R. was lodged against four named accused

and three unknown persons for the offence under Sections

341/323/307/379/504 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

3. The I.O. after concluding the investigation filed charge-

sheet against the accused Sanjay Mahto, Nirmal Mahto and

Dharmendra Mehta for the offence under Section

341/323/325/504 read with 34 of I.P.C. and the accused

Akhilessh Mahto was exonerated.

4. The learned trial court has framed the charge against the

three accused, who are petitioners herein, for the offence under

Section 307 of I.P.C while no alleged offence is made out from

the evidence collected by the I.O. and also taking into

consideration the injury report as well.

5. The learned Counsel for the O.P.No.2 and the learned

A.P.P. vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned

Counsel for the petitioners and contended that from the

allegations made in the F.I.R. all the accused persons had

assaulted with deadly weapons and the injuries which the

injured persons sustained were also on vital part. As such the

offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is also made out against all

the accused persons.

6. It is the settled law that while framing the charge the Court

has to go through the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also

the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation oral as

well as documentary. While framing the charge the court has to

see whether there are sufficient ground to proceed against the

accused persons for the offence alleged. At this stage the court

cannot appreciate the appreciation of evidence, marshalling of

evidence is not permissible. The court cannot conduct the mini

trial at the time of framing the charge.

7. As per allegations made in the F.I.R. the written

information was given by the informant Sibal Mahto with these

allegations that on 11.08.2016 the accused Sanjay Mahto,

Akhilesh Mahto, Nirmal Mahto and Dharmendra Mehta all

intruded in his house armed with deadly weapon and assaulted

to Aashish Mehta and Pawan Mehta who both sustained

grievous injury. Sanjay Mahto had given the blow with the

sword to Aashish Mehta on the point of pistol which hit on his

forehead. Nirmal Mahto had given blow with lathi to Aashish

Mehta, Pawan Mehta and to wife of Pawan Mehta. The accused

persons had also broken the lock of the box placed inside the

house and also took away the jewellery and 40,000/- rupee in

cash.

8. On this written information, the case crime No. 36 of 2016,

under Sections 341/323/325/504/34 of I.P.C. was registered

against the accused persons.

9. The I.O. after concluding the investigation filed charge-

sheet under Section 341/323/325/504 read with 34 of I.P.C.

against the four accused including the present three petitioners.

10. In para 3 of the case diary the informant corroborated the

prosecution story. In para 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 examined the

independent eye witness of the occurrence. All these witnesses

stated that the accused Sanjay Mahto, Nirmal Mahto,

Dharmendra Mahto and Karamchand Mahto all had assaulted

to Aashish and Pawan whereby both sustained injury. Head

injury was also sustained by Aashish. The wife of informant

Lilawati Devi was also examined in para 7 of the case diary. She

also corroborated the prosecution story. None of the injured

person was interrogated by the I.O. under section 161 of Cr.P.C.

The injury report of all the injured in para 62 of the case diary.

In injury report of Aashish Mahto there are four injuries. Injury

No.2 is lacerated wound on occipital region of head about 1"x

¼"x 1/3". Injury No.4 as per X'ray report was grievous in

nature. The injury report of Pawan Kumar Mahto there are three

injuries. The injury No.1 is lacerated wound on right parietal

area of head 1"x ½"x ¼". The injury caused are alleged to be

caused by hard and blunt object.

11. For the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. there are

certain circumstantial evidence also from which it can be

inferred in regard to the intention of the accused persons while

inflicting the injury. As per F.I.R. allegations the accused

persons were armed with Lathi, Danda, Farsa and pistol as well.

The accused persons had assaulted with Lathi, Danda and

Farsa. All the accused persons armed with deadly weapon had

intruded in the house of the informant and assaulted with the

same to the inmates of the house of Aashish Mahto, Pawan

Kumar Mahto and wife of Pawan Mahto as well. As per injury

report Aashish Mahto and Pawan Mahto both sustained head

injury though simple in nature but it was on the vital part. The

one injury was also grievous including fracture to Aashish

Mahto. To infer the intention to commit murder can be inferred

from the seat of the injury on which body part the injured

persons had sustained injuries and also the act and conduct of

the assailants at the time of occurrence. From the injury report

and the statement of all the independent eye witness, it is found

that all the accused persons had assaulted with Lathi and Farsa

as well inflicted injury on the head from which the intention of

the accused person is inferred to commit murder.

12. Herein it would be pertinent to give the certain provisions

of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court:

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Palwinder Singh vrs.

Balwinder singh (2008) 14 SCC 504:

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it entered into the realm of appreciation of evidence at the stage of the framing of the charges itself. The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charges can also be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the Court at that point of time. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] wherein it was held as under: (SCC p. 579, para 23) "23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, clearly the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. Satish Mehra case [Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn., (1996) 9 SCC 766 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1104] holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided."

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Sanghi Brothers (Indore)

Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Sanjay Choudhary & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 681:

11. Sections 227, 239 and 245 deal with discharge from criminal charge. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] it was noted that at the stage of framing the charge the court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. (underlined [Ed. : Herein italicised.] for

emphasis) The court has to see while considering the question of framing the charge as to whether the material brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with the trial. Nothing more is required to be inquired into. (See Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia [(1989) 1 SCC 715 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 285] and State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid [(1995) 1 SCC 684 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 266] .)

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held in Rukmini Narvekar

vrs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors. A.I.R.2009 SC 1013:

38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such materials as are indicated in Section 227 CrPC can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482 CrPC the court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi case [(2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] by the larger Bench therein to which the very same question had been referred

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Central Bureau of

Investigation vrs. Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff & Ors

(2010) 3 SCC Cr. 315:

"The appreciation of evidence, at the stage of discharge is impermissible what is required is to be seen is whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused."

17. In view of the submissions made and the material on

record in the F.I.R. and also the evidence collected by the I.O. the

offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is also made out against the

accused persons. The court-below has rightly rejected the

discharge application and the impugned order needs no

interference.

18. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision is dismissed.

(Subhash Chand, J.)

P.K.S.