Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jashwant Singh Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 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 20 th OF JUNE, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 520 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. JASHWANT SINGH RAGHUWANSHI S/O LATE
SHRI RADHELAL RAGHUWANSHI, AGED ABOUT
62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD, DURGA
NAGAR, MAYA SAXENA KE SAMANE, DISTRICT
VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NARESH SHARMA S/O LATE HARISHANKAR
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
PURANPURA GALI NO. 4 DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI AMIT LAHOTI AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR TYAGI, LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. GAYATRI SONI W/O LATE RAJNEET SONI, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ASHISH
MAHESHWARI KA MAKAN A/76 MUKHARJI
NAGAR, DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.1- STATE AND NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2
DESPITE NOTICE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 6/22/2023
2:36:09 PM
with Section 401 of CrPC against the order of framing charges dated 24-01-
2023 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions Trial
No.90 of 2022, whereby charges under Sections 120-B, 302/120-B, 201 of IPC
have been framed.
Prosecution case, in short, is that Inspector in-charge of Police Station,
Civil Line, Vidisha recorded a merg no.65 of 2022 under Section 174 of CrPC
on the merg intimation given by Khemchand Rekwar, Ward of District Hospital
Vidisha and after recording the statements of witnesses Umesh Chaturvedi and
Yogesh Saxena, merg was enquired and it was found that Ranjit Soni, son of
Krishnagopal Soni, aged 46 years, resident of Mukharjee Nagar, Vidisha who
used to work under RTI went to PWD Office, Vidisha at around 05:15 am and
under the tin-shed in the PWD premises, some unknown persons ran away after
shooting him at the back of his head with intention of killing him due to which
Ranjit Soni died in surgical ward, Vidisha. Dead body of deceased Ranjit Soni
was conducted. As per opinion of doctor, the dead was due to shock as a
result of firearm injury. The bullet was fired from close or near range. Death of
deceased was homicidal in nature. Duration of death of deceased was within 24
hours since postmortem examination. His Viscera was preserved for
biochemical analysis. Recovered bullet was preserved in sealed condition and
handed over the same to concerned police. Crime no.332 of 2022 was
registered at Police Station Vidisha Dehat, on the basis of aforesaid merg, for
offence under Section 302, 201 of IPC against unknown persons. Matter was
investigated. During investigation, on the basis of memorandum of co-accused
Ankit recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner have been
made accused. Investigation was carried out in relation to aforesaid Crime for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 6/22/2023
2:36:09 PM
offences under Sections 302, 201, 148, 149, 120-B of IPC and under Sections
25/27 of Arms Act.Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of
investigation and other formalities, charge sheet has been filed. The learned trial
Court vide impugned order framed charges against the petitioners for the
offences punishable 120-B, 302/120-B, 201 of IPC.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned
FIR had been lodged against unknown persons. It is further contended that a
case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act had been registered
against the deceased and wife of deceased with mala fide intention has made
false allegations against petitioners alleging that the petitioners are in connivance
with other co-accused have committed murder of her husband. It would be
unjustified to convict any person on the basis of suspicion and circumstantial
evidence until and unless that the evidence is corroborative with direct proof
given by prosecution. It is further contended that from the possession of
present petitioners neither there is any incriminating materials collected by the
police nor any deadly weapon was recovered by police. Alleged arms was
recovered from possession of co-accused Ankit. Only on the basis of evidence
of co-accused Ankit recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the
petitioners have been implicated as accused and except that, there is no direct
evidence available against the petitioners either in the impugned FIR or the
charge sheet. Even the call details of the petitioners collected by police are not
conclusive in nature. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment
of Indore Bench of this High Court in the case of Pradeep Sharma vs. State
of MP (CRR 1789 of 2020) decided on 14-08-2020. On relying upon on
the decision of Patna High Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Vs. State
of Bihar 1992 CRI.L.J. 2190 he also contended that the statements under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 6/22/2023
2:36:09 PM
Section 27 of the Evidence Act are not admissible against the person other than
the maker of the statements. Similarly, on relying upon the judgment of Kusal
Toppo vs. State of Jharkhand 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1563 he contended
that a confession cannot be treated as substantive evidence against a co-
accused. By relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 SCC
(Cri) 310 as well as decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of
Raghu Thakur vs. State of MP, reported in 2012(4) MPHT 116, he
contended that except statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act made by
the co-accused, there is no evidence on record to support the prosecution case.
Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order of framing charges.
Learned Counsel for the State submitted that after collecting the materials
and documents by investigating officer and upon producing the same, the trial
Court has rightly passed impugned order of framing charges. No interference is
warranted. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this revision.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused charge sheet as well as
other documents available on record.
Having regard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties
as well as having regard to the position in law and the fact that the present
petitioners have been implicated only on the basis of the memorandum of co-
accused Ankit recorded u/S.27 of Evidence Act and there is no other material
to connect them with alleged offence. No seizure or recovery of any deadly
weapon or any incriminating materials have been made in pursuance to their
memorandum recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act. Accordingly, this
revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of framing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 6/22/2023
2:36:09 PM
charges dated 24-01-2023 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.90 of 2022 is hereby set aside and the petitioners
are discharges from charges levelled against them.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 6/22/2023
2:36:09 PM
