Raghvendra Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8033 MP

                                                                  1                              CRR-2457-2021
                                        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                 CRR No. 2457 of 2021
                                       (RAGHVENDRA SINGH RAJPUT AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                 Jabalpur, Dated : 01-12-2021
                                       Shri Raunak Yadav, Advocate for the applicants.

                                       Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, P.L. for the respondents-State.

Shri Guljar Rajput, Advocate for the objector. The present revision is being filed challenging the order dated 14.9.2021 whereby the charges under Sections 294, 148, 302, 120-B r/w

149, 120-B of IPC and Section 25(1-b) A of Arms Act have been framed against the applicants.

The challenge is made only on the ground that no offence under Section 149 of IPC is made out against the present applicants because there was no unlawful assembly. He has drawn attention of this Court to provision of Section 149 of IPC and has argued that minimum 5 persons making an unlawful assembly are required for implication of Section 149 of IPC. In the present case, if the prosecution story is seen then 4 persons were available at the time of commission of offence and one Dheerendra

Patwa was not available at the place of commission of offence. He has joined the group subsequently and has held the Principal accused Raghvendra for fleeing away after the commission of offence. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Pandurang Thakre and others vs. State of Maharastra, (2017) Vol. 4 SCC 377 wherein it is held that in absence of any evidence of conspiracy or common object being established and mere presence of the accused at the place of commission of offence does not make him a member of unlawful assembly unless he has actively participated in riots and has done some overact with necessary criminal intention or shares a common object of unlawful assembly. The aforesaid Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.12.03 11:39:36 IST 2 CRR-2457-2021 ingredients are missing from the prosecution story. Thus, the charges framed against the applicants under Section 149 of IPC is not clearly made out. He has prayed for quashment of the order.

Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that at the time of framing of charges it is only required to be

seen that whether prima facie case is made out against the present applicants or not.

As far as framing of charge is concerned, it is settled preposition of law held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhawana Bai Vs. Ghanshyam and others, reported in 2020 (1) JLJ 381 wherein the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is to be seen whether the case is beyond the reasonable doubt is not required to be seen at this stage. The Court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. I t has further observed that while evaluating the material available on record collected by the investigating agency strict standard of proof is not required to be seen. The judge is not required to go into detail and record detailed reason for framing charges against the accused. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra and another, 2012 (9) SCC 460.

The aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed in the case of Dinesh Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2014) 13 SCC 137, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for framing charges under section 228 of Cr.P.C. the judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if the judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed Signature Not Verified SAN the offence triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame the charge Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.12.03 11:39:36 IST 3 CRR-2457-2021 against the accused for such offence The role of the applicants in the present case is that he has helped the other co-accused and principal accused to flew away, in the matter, therefore, it cannot be said that he is not a member of unlawful assembly at this stage. Whether he was having a common intention or not is to be gathered from the evidence by leading cogent evidence by the prosecution.

In such circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the present applicants.

No case is made out for calling interference in the impugned order.

Order is just and proper.

Accordingly, this revision is hereby rejected.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

irfan

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.12.03 11:39:36 IST