Arshad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 13584 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arshad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2024

Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta

Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta

                                                           1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                                                ON THE 10 th OF MAY, 2024
                                         CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2158 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         ARSHAD S/O AYYUB, AGED 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                         LABOUR R/O MANAWAR, DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI NILESH DAVE - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                         STATION MANAWAR, DISTT, DHAR (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                              .....RESPONDENT/STATE
                         (BY SHRI SAGAR MULEY - PL)

                               This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

This criminal revision 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by co-

accused Arshad being aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, Dhar in S.T. No.7/2023, whereby the learned trial Court has framed charges u/S 147, 148, 341 r/w 149, 294, 307 r/w 149 and 506-II of IPC against the petitioner alongwith co-accused persons.

2. According to the prosecution story, on 23.12.2021, at around 05:00 - 05:15 PM, the complainant Utpal alongwith his friend Kunal was returning to village Singhana from Manawar by motorcycle. When they reached at Balipur

Phaate, the petitioner and co-accused persons named Shakuub, Sameer,

Salman, Riyaz, Amjad and 4 unknown persons carrying Lathi stopped the complainant and his friend started to abuse in filthy language. Co-accused Shakuub gave Lathi blow on the head of the complainant but he ducked in order to save himself in consequence of which he sustained the blow on back. Other co-accused persons including the petitioner also assaulted him by means of Lathi. He sustained injuries on his shoulder and back with intent to kill him. Friend of the complainant Kunal fled away from the place of incident. The accused persons threatened the complainant that if he saw him in Manawar, then they will kill him. The matter was reported on 24.12.2021 by the complainant.

3. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties had framed

charges against the petitioner and co-accused persons as mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that even if the allegation levelled by the prosecution against the petitioner is considered to be true, then too no offence u/S 307 of IPC is made out but only offence u/S 323 in place of S. 307 is prima facie made out. It is submitted that as per MLC, the complainant had sustained a single contusion injury on his scapular region sized 2 x 0.5 cm. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner and co-accused persons had tried to kill the complainant. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court without considering the aforementioned has wrongly framed charge u/S 307 of IPC against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order in-as-much related to provision u/S 307 of IPC is liable to be set aside.

5. On other hand, learned counsel for the state/non-applicant has opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. In the case of State of Orissa V Devendranath Padhi [2004 Lawsuit SC 1408] is worth to refer here as under:-

"Further, at the stage of framing of charge, rowing and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there will be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge that would defeat the object of the court. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth."

8. This Court is conscious of the various decision laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. In the case of Union of India V Prafull Kumar Sawal and Anr. [AIR 1979 SC 366], the Apex Court has given following observation:-

"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 [AIR 1955 SC 298] 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 pro poses to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebut ted 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. "

9. In the case of Ravi Kumar Pandey V State of M.P. [2018 lawsuit MP 2190], this Court has held as under:-

"8. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be

applied finally before finding, the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of charge by the trial Court. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon material before the trial Court, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence is lawful. "

10. In this respect, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court regarding framing of charge is also worth to be considered. In this regard, the view of Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar V Ramesh Chandar [(2022) 9 SCC 460] has opined as under:-

"12. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial Court or the inferior Court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression 'prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non- compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily."

11. In the case of State of Rajasthan V Fateh Karan Mehdu [(2020) 3 SCC 998], the Apex Court has held as under:-

"26. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of

committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure."

12. In view of the aforesaid discussed in the entirety as well as material available on record, the law laid down by Apex Court in above cases, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, no interference is warranted.

13. Accordingly, the revision petition sans merits, hence, is hereby dismissed and impugned order of the trial Court is affirmed.

14. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case and this order shall not come in the way of learned trial court in passing the final judgment.

(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE Shruti