Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijesh Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 13th OF JULY, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No.2832 OF 2023
Between:-
1. BRIJESH RAI, S/O SHRI SARMAN SINGH
RAI, AGED 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION -
BUSINESS, R/O C-729 ANAND NAGAR,
BAHODAPUR, DISTRICT- GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PANKAJ RAI, S/O SHRI SARMAN SINGH
RAI, AGED 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION-
BUSINESS, R/O C-729 ANAND NAGAR,
BAHODAPUR, DISTRICT- GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
........APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI RAJMANI BANSAL- ADVOCATE )
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION -
BAHODAPUR, DISTRICT- GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(SHRI PRAMOD PACHAURI- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE AND SHRI Y.K. PATHAK WITH SHRI ATUL GUPTA-
ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This revision coming on for hearing, this day, the Court passed the
following:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the applicants under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated
30/11/2022 passed by 15th Additional Session Judge, District- Gwalior (M.P.) in
S.T. No.149/2022, whereby the charges have been framed against the
applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 of IPC and
Sections 25(1)(1-B)(A) and 27 of Arms Act in relation to FIR registered at
Crime No.843/2021 at Police Station- Bahodapur, District- Gwalior (M.P.)
2. Brief facts of the case are that prosecution case is that on 02/11/2021 at
9.50 AM, the complainant- Nikunj Rai lodged a Dehati Nalisi with Amar Singh
Sikarwar, Station House Officer, Bahodapur, Gwalior regarding murder of
deceased Pappu @ Ram Kumar Rai. As per report, in the morning after
opening his Gym, he was standing outside the Gym alongwith Milan and Kapil
Rai in the morning at about 6.35 AM, at that time, his father- Pappu @
Ramkumar (since deceased) came out from the house and went towards
Muskan Vatika for morning walk. As soon as, he went hardly 50 steps ahead,
one boy came running and fired on his father's head, due to which, he fell
down. Thereafter, from side of Badepark, another boy came and also fired on
him. He also told that, "Bachne Na Paye Jaan Se Khatam Kardo". He also fired
on his chest. When the complainant alongwith Milan and Kapil ran towards the
deceased, accused persons fled away from the spot. Complainant has stated that
two persons have murdered his father and when accused persons ran from the
spot, some nearby persons who were standing there also ran with them, if they
come before him, he will recognize them. On his Dehati Nalisi, FIR bearing
Crime No.843/2021 at Police Station- Bahodapur, District- Gwalior (M.P.) was
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 34 of IPC. Dead body
Panchnama was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem. As per
postmortem report, he died due to multiple gunshot injuries. During
investigation, statement of two witnesses, i.e. Jaswant and Naresh were
recorded in which for the first time, name of the applicants came after three
days of the incident. Statement of one witness i.e. Jaswant reads as under:-
^^fnukad 30-11-2021 dks eSa ujs'k dq'kokg ds lkFk esa fczts'k o iadt jk; ds QkeZ gkml ij
'kke djh 6&7 cts dh ckr gksxh D;ksafd ujs'k dks iadt rFkk czts'k xkM+h pykus dh ckr djuh Fkh
ge yksx ogka cSBs Fks rHkh ogak ij iadt ds QkeZ gkml ij eqds'k mQZ ?kksaVk rFkk vkdk'k o
fnXxh ;s yksx ogka vk x, rc iadt rFkk fczts'k jk; us ujs'k dq'kokg ls dgk ;s yksx vk x;s gSa
buls t:jh ckr djuk gS rqe yksx FkksM+k ckgj cSB tkvks rks eSa rFkk ujs'k nksuksa yksx ckgj vk x,
rFkk ujs'k cksyk ;g ,slh D;k ckr dj jgs gSa tks ge nksuksa dks ckgj dj fn;k rks nksuksa yksx
fNidj mudh ckrsa lquus yxsA ?kksaVk us us iadt rFkk czts'k ls dgk fd ykyw rFkk ih;w"k rqEgkjk
dke dj nsxsa rFkk lqcg gh iIiw jk; dks [kRe dj nsaxs rc ?kksaVk us dgk cdk;k iSls rqe vHkh ns
nks rc iadt jk; rFkk czts'k jk; us dgk fd brus iSls rqEgs ns pqdk gwa cdk;k iSls dke gksrs gh
ckn esa fey tk,axs blds ckn geus rFkk ujs'k us mlh fnu iIiw jk; dks ryk'kk exj og feyk
ugha mldk Qksu ua- esjs ikl Fkk ugha bl dkj.k ckr ugha gks ldh rc nwljs fnu eq>s ekywe iM+k
fd iIiw jk; dh gR;k gks xbZ rks fuf'pr gh iadt vkSj fczts'k ls ?kksaVk ds lkFk "kM;a= jpdj vkSj
mls iSlk nsdj iIiw jk; dh gR;k djkbZ gSA^^
3. Another witness i.e. Naresh has also stated the same version as stated
above.
4. Accused persons were arrested. After nine days of the incident, statement
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of co-accused- Lalu @ Suraj was
recorded in which he has stated that the present applicants were also involved
in the crime. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. Thereafter,
Charges were framed under Sections 120-B, 302 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(1-
B)(A) and 27 of Arms Act against the applicants. Applicants abjured their guilt.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been
falsely implicated in this case and they are not concerned with the case. FIR has
been lodged by the complainant against the unknown persons and the
applicants have been implicated in this case only on the basis of memorandum
of co-accused- Lalu @ Suraj recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act which
is not at all admissible. Test Identification Parade of the applicants has also not
been conducted by the prosecution. The incident is said to be occurred on
02/12/2021 and for three days, the witnesses kept mum and did not inform to
anyone that they had listened the talks about the murder of Pappu Rai. Hence,
this Criminal Revision has been filed by the applicants for setting-aside the
impugned order of framing charges.
6. Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant vehemently
opposed the submissions so advanced by the applicants by submitting that at
this stage no interference is warranted. Learned counsel for the complainant
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Captain Manjit
Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Ors. [2023 (2)
Crimes 414 (SC). Hence, prayed for dismissal of this criminal revision.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. So far as order of framing charges is concerned, the law has been laid
down by the Apex Court in the matters of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of
Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135; and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal & Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4, wherein it has been observed by the Apex
Court that if materials so collected by the prosecution simply raised a suspicion
against accused, the trial Court is bound to discharge the accused as in the
circumstances the charges have to be treated as groundless.
9. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the
law laid down by the Apex Court as cited above as well as the materials so
collected by the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that no
offence is made out against the applicants. Accordingly, present criminal
revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 30/11/2022 passed by 15th
Additional Session Judge, District- Gwalior (M.P.) in S.T. No.149/2022
framing charges under Sections 120-B and 302 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(1-B)
(A) and 27 of Arms Act is hereby set-aside. Applicants are discharged from the
charges so levelled against them.
10. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision is allowed and disposed of.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
RAHUL Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
rahul
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
SINGH
2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab6
76d0cde4dee473fe77953f5,
pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE0
0D487,
serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED9
PARIHAR
10FD4AB9D159B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH
PARIHAR
Date: 2023.07.14 13:47:43 +05'30'
