Jharkhand High Court
Vishal Rajak @ Vishal Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... ... on 28 October, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.588 of 2024
----
Vishal Rajak @ Vishal Kumar, aged about 23 years, Son of Chakkan Rajak,
Resident of Village-Jarmune, P.O. and P.S. Bagodar, District-Giridih
.... .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raunak Sahay, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Special P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, Adv.
----
th
08/Dated: 28 October, 2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present criminal revision application has been filed for quashing and
setting aside the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in connection with S.T Case
No.255 of 2023 arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No.112 of 2022, corresponding
to G.R No.679 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in
M.C.A No.187 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, discharge application of the
petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Vijayan vrs. State of Kerala and
Another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398. Paragraph Nos.10, 11 & 25 of the said
judgment are quoted herein below:-
10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful
to refer Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:-
"227. Discharge- 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."
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished
from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and
at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
Further, 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 the function
of the Court, after the trial starts.
11. 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. 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.
25. As discussed earlier, Section 227 in the new Code confers special power
on the Judge to discharge an accused at the threshold if upon consideration of the
records and documents, he find that "there is not sufficient ground" for
proceeding against the accused. In other words, his consideration of the record
and document at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or
not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the Judge
comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a
charge under Section 228, if not, he will discharge the accused. This provision
was introduced in the Code to avoid wastage of public time which did not
disclose a prima facie case and to save the accused from avoidable harassment
and expenditure."
[
4. On the strength of the above judgment, it has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the revisionist that if two views are possible then the Court may take
lenient view in favour of the accused.
5. In the present case, there are some materials which suggest that his
presence at the place of occurrence was with the consent of the victim. Further, the
act of rape has not been committed by the revisionist/petitioner.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record,
it appears that the revisionist has been apprehended by the Family Members in the
dead night. Further, victim has clearly stated that she has suffered sexual assault.
7. Considering the above facts, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the
allegation made by the victim at this stage. Accordingly, the present criminal
revision application is hereby, dismissed.
8. However, the revisionist/petitioner is at liberty to take all the points in the
pending trial.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/-
Uploaded
Page | 2 Criminal Revision No.588 of 2024
