Jharkhand High Court
Aditya Singh @ Bittu Singh @ Banti Singh vs State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party on 3 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 183 of 2022
Aditya Singh @ Bittu Singh @ Banti Singh, aged about 38 years, Son of
Birendra Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Kishorganj, Road No. 1, P.O-
G.P.O., P.S.- Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi. ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P
---------
JUDGEMENT
CAV on: 26.04.2024 Pronounced on:03/05.2024
The instant revision application has been filed against the judgment
dated 14.02.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Bokaro in S.T. Case No. 65 of 2021, arising out of Chas P.S.
Case No. 231 of 2020, registered under Sections 386, 387, 388 and 307 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act, whereby the petition
filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr. P.C. for discharge, has been
rejected.
2. At the outset, submission has been made on behalf of petitioner that
there is no iota of material available on record to proceed with the trial by
framing charge against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner
buttress his argument by pointing out that during course of investigation,
there is no material collected by I.O. to connect the petitioner with any of
the mobile number mentioned by informant in the F.I.R. from which it is
alleged that ransom calls were made and threat has also been extended to
the informant.
Further, learned counsel pointed out that it is the case of prosecution
that this petitioner allegedly by saying brother of co-accused Sunny Singh
has made a call to the informant on 16.09.2020 and extended threat. But,
the petitioner is not the brother of co-accused Sunny Singh which is very
evident from the material collected by I.O. during course of investigation as
the parentage of present petitioner is not same to that of co-accused Sunny
Singh.
Lastly, submission has been made on behalf of petitioner that other
two co-accused persons namely Sunny Singh & Suraj Sinha @ Abhishek
Sinha have been acquitted in the present case by the learned trial Court
vide judgment dated 06.03.2024 in Sessions Trail No. 344 of 2023.
Upon aforesaid premise, prayer has been made to set aside the
impugned order dated 14.02.2022, as the petitioner is entitled for discharge
in the present case.
3. Per contra, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing for
the State vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioner and submitted that
during course of investigation, I.O. has verified the petitioner which is
evident from Para 10 of the case diary and there is ample of material
available in the case diary to proceed with the trial qua the petitioner.
4. After hearing both the sides and perusing the material available on
record, this Court finds that F.I.R. No. 231/2020 dated 01.10.2020 has been
registered in the present case on the basis of written complaint of informant
stating therein that he is doing railway scrap business for last 10-11 years
and on 10.09.2020, he received a call from Mobile no. 8809340735 on his
Mobile no. 7004410051 and the caller told the informant that he is Sunny
Singh of Bokaro syndicate and informant has to pay tax for every
transaction @ of Rs.500/- per ton and the informant who was paying this
amount to one Amit Chaudhary now, he has to pay to the caller.
5. It is further alleged that again on 14.09.2020 the above said co-
accused Sunny Singh made a call to informant and stated informant not to
bid as the matter has been finalized with one Rajesh Singh Bhaiya and
before the call of above said Sunny Singh, informant had received
WhatsApp call from mobile no. 9431698766 by one Rajesh Singh who has
also forbade informant for bidding and again on 16.09.2020 co-accused
Rajesh Singh from above said mobile number extended threat as the
informant participated in the auction. It is further alleged by informant that
on that date i.e. 16.09.2020, Bittu Singh (petitioner herein) has made a call
from Mobile no. 8809347305 and told informant that he is Bittu Singh
brother of Sunny Singh and asked the informant to be careful, otherwise he
would have to face the consequences. On 30.09.2020, again the informant
received message not to participate in the bid for 350 MT material of
Tatisilway, otherwise the informant would have to pay Rs. 1,000/- per ton.
It is further alleged by the informant that on 01.10.2020 at 5 PM in the
evening two persons came on Motorcycle and one person on the pretext of
giving some paper entered into his house and fired on the informant, but
the informant fell down from the chair, as such he could be saved.
Thereafter, information was given to Police and empty cartridge has also
been seized from the house of informant.
6. It appears that during course of investigation, I.O. has recorded
restatement of the informant as well as the statement of witness Nira Devi,
(Wife of informant) and witness Abhishek Kumar Singh (son of informant),
who have categorically corroborated the content of F.I.R. and both the
witnesses categorically stated that at the time of incident, in the evening of
01.10.2020, they were present in the home, when bullet was fired on the
informant. Case diary further reveals that during course of investigation,
I.O. has called other persons (Contractors) who used to deal in Railway
scrap and they have categorically stated to the I.O that this petitioner along
with other co-accused persons are running a syndicate and demanding
ransom from the persons who are dealing with scrap material. During
course of investigation, it has also been found that petitioner came to
Bokaro on the day i.e. 01.10.2020 along with 2-3 persons on his Mahindra
Scorpio having registration no. JH01CS-7258 and the said vehicle has also
been seized in the present case. Also, C.C.T.V. footage showing the
entering of two co-accused persons in the evening of 01.10.2020 in the
house of informant and after commission of offence fleeing away from the
spot, has also been collected during investigation.
7. One independent witness, namely, Vishal Kumar Singh has
categorically stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C that
on 01.10.2020 this petitioner along with 3-4 friends came to Bokaro in his
Scorpio car having registration no. JH01CS-7258 and they were having
Motorcycle also, but he could not see the registration of the said
Motorcycle. During course of investigation, I.O. has also come across the
fact that this petitioner along with other named co-accused persons running
a syndicate to demand ransom from the persons/contractors. Case diary
further reveals that petitioner is having as many as 10 cases to his credit of
different nature including murder, attempt to murder, fraud, extortion etc.
8. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v.
Prafulla Kumar Samal, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4 has categorically
elaborated the stage where there exists "sufficient" and "not sufficient
ground" for proceeding against the accused in the case of discharge, which
has been held at para 7 and 8, which read as under -
"7. Section 227 of the Code runs thus:
"If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused
and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge
the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
The words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame
the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his
judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case
for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is
not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter
or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is
really his function after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the
Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The
sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence
recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which
ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the
accused so as to frame a charge against him.
8. The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by a recent
decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh
Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 : (1978) 1 SCR 257]
where Untwalia, J., speaking for the Court observed as follows:
"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. The
presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at
the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of
criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be
guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose
of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with
the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to
adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted
before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the
defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed
the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding
with the trial."
This Court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion may not
take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for
the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge in order to frame a charge against
the accused. Even under the Code of 1898 this Court has held that a
committing Magistrate had ample powers to weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a case of commitment to the
Sessions Judge has been made out."
9. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 476, has held
that at the time of framing of charge the Court is required to evaluate the
material and documents on record to decide whether there is a ground for
presuming that the accused had committed the offence. There is no need to
evaluate the sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused. Materials
brought on record by the prosecution can be believed to be true, but their
probative value cannot be decided at that stage. The accused is entitled to
urge his contentions while entertaining the discharge application only on
the material submitted by the prosecution, but he is not entitled to produce
any material at that stage and the Court is not required to consider any such
material. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:
15. This Court partly allowed the appeal qua the parents-in-law while
dismissing the same qua the husband. This Court explained the legal
position and the approach to be adopted by the court at the stage of
framing of charges or directing discharge in the following words: (Onkar
Nath case [(2008) 2 SCC 561 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 507] , SCC p. 565,
para 11)
"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a
view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face
value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the
alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep
into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the
offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the
accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong
suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients
constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge
against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
(emphasis supplied)
16. Support for the above view was drawn by this Court from the earlier
decisions rendered in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2
SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 : 1977 Cri LJ 1125] , State of
Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [(1996) 4 SCC 659 : 1996 SCC (Cri)
820 : 1996 Cri LJ 2448] and State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [(2000) 6
SCC 338 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1110 : 2000 Cri LJ 3504] . In Som Nath
case [(1996) 4 SCC 659 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 820 : 1996 Cri LJ 2448] the
legal position was summed up as under: (SCC p. 671, para 32)
"32. ... if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come
to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable
consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it
differently, if the court were to think that the accused might
have [Ed.: The words "might have" and "has" are emphasised in
original.] committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be that the
accused has [Ed.: The words "might have" and "has" are
emphasised in original.] committed the offence. It is apparent that at
the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on
record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the
prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
(emphasis supplied)
10. The law is well settled as has been discussed hereinabove that while
exercising the power conferred under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C., the Court
while dealing with petition filed therein is to consider the record of the case
and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submission of
the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, Judge considers that there is
no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge
the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Meaning thereby, it is not
available for the accused person to come out with the documents at the
stage of consideration of petition filed under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C.
reason being that at the stage of Section 227 of Cr. P.C., the Judge has
merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and in other words the
sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence
recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which
ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused
so as to frame a charge against him and after that if the Judge comes to the
conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame charge
under Section 228 of Cr. P.C. and if not, he will discharge the accused.
11. The plea of petitioner that he is not the brother of co-accused Sunny
Singh cannot and should not be considered at the threshold as it is alleged
in the FIR that a person of the name of petitioner called informant and said
he is brother of Sunny Singh and as far as acquittal of other two co-accused
is concerned, it is not at all a ground for discharge as without trial it is very
difficult to assess the outcome /result of a case.
12. In view of above stated legal proposition, this Court is of the
considered view that material collected during course of investigation qua
the petitioner makes out sufficient ground to proceed with the trial qua the
petitioner. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court in impugned
order dated 14.02.2022, as such, this criminal revision stands dismissed.
13. Before parting with the order, it is made clear that the findings so
recorded at by this Court are restricted only for the purpose of dealing with
the matter of discharge and as such the trial Court will not be prejudiced by
any of the findings so recorded by this Court or observations made by this
Court, during trial.
14. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed
of.
15. Let a copy of this order be communicated through „FAX‟ to the court
concerned.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Pramanik/suman
