Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra @ Lala Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 September, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17732
1 CRR-2243-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2243 of 2025
RAJENDRA @ LALA YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harshit Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner/complainant.
Shri Anurag Sharma - PP for the respondent/State.
Reserved on : 12.08.2025.
Order delivered on : 17.09.2025.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Heard on the point of admission.
Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 read with 442
of BNSS, 2023 against the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, District Datia in S.T.No.26/25 whereby the charges
under section 103(1), 248 (B) and 230 of BNS Act and Section 25(1)(1-b)/27
of the Arms Act have been framed against the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that, on 30th October 2024, the complainant
(Petitioner) visited Prajapati Dhaba for food with Karan Yadav, and Pramod
Yadav. He sat inside the Dhaba, while Pramod and Karan remained outside
the Dhaba. Jeetu Pardeshi (deceased) who works at the Dhaba, was serving
him food. At around 9:30 pm, Naval Patel and Bansingh Patel of Pasura
Village came inside the Dhaba and due to old enmity, Naval Patel exhorted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17732
2 CRR-2243-2025
Bansingh stating that Bansingh should shot the (Complainant). Thereafter,
with the intention of killing him, Bansingh Patel fired from a Katta, which
hit Jeetu Pardeshi, who was serving the food to the complainant, in the
stomach and Jeetu fell to the ground. Later on, during the treatment, he died.
The matter was reported to PS Badoni and accordingly, the offence had been
registered. During investigation, Mukesh Prajapati in his statement under
Section 180 of BNSS said that Jeetu @ Jitendra died due to the bullet shot by
petitioner/complainant Rajendra @ Lala Yadav from his 315-bore pistol. He
also deposed the same statement before the trial court. During investigation,
Rajendra @ Lala Yadav was arrested and he opined that due to old enmity
and several other matter, he has falsely implicated Banesingh and Naval
Singh in this matter.
After committal of the case, the trial court has framed aforesaid
charges, but the petitioner abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
Being aggrieved by the order relating to the framing of charges, the
petitioner has preferred this criminal revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner
himself reported the matter to the police. There is no direct or indirect
evidence available in the matter to link the petitioner with the aforesaid
offence. Despite the FIR, the investigating officer has not filed charge-sheet
against Ban Singh and Naval Singh. Mukesh turned hostile before the trial
court. The petitioner has no motive to kill the deceased and due to the
accidental and negligent gun fire, the incident took place, which does not
amount to culpable homicide. The trial court has ignored the essential
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17732
3 CRR-2243-2025
ingredient of Section 230 and 248(B) of BNS. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot be charged for the offence punishable under section 230 and 248(B)
of BNSS Act. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and
petitioner be discharged from all the charges.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer
and prayed for it's rejection.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of Dehati Nalishi, it appears that petitioner Rajesh alias
Lala lodged a report against Ban Singh and Naval Singh but during
investigation, on the basis of statement of witness Mukesh Prajapati and
Pramod Yadav, it has been gathered that the petitioner/complainant himself
had fired at the deceased. During investigation, on the basis of memorandum
of statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act, a Katta has been
recovered from the possession of petitioner.
The petitioner has contended that he has been falsely implicated in the
matter due to previous enmity but the grounds raised by the petitioner is
subject matter of the property. It is noteworthy that at the time of framing of
charge, the court has to ascertain whether, the prima facie case is made out
against the accused or not?. The trial court while considering the question of
framing of charge has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether, the prima facie case has been made out
against the accused or not? The Hon'ble Apex in the case of C.B.I Vs.
K.Narayan Rao (2012) 8 SCC 512 relying upon the judgment in 2010 (2)
Crimes 1 SC had opined that in assessing the fact, it is not necessary to enter
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17732
4 CRR-2243-2025
into the pros and cons of the matter of into a weighing and balancing of the
evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court after trial
starts.
Further, in the case of Ashish Chadha Vs. Asha Kumari and another,
(2012) 1 SCC 680, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined as under :
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sc. 401 and 482, High
Court's powers of revision - Quashment of charge - co Re-
appreciation of evidence - Impressibility - Held, it is trial court
which has to decide whether, evidence on record is sufficient to
make out a prima facie case agaisnt accused to frame charges
agaisnt him".
In this regard, the observation made in judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State ( Government
of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (16) SCC 605, is relevant, which reads as under :
"It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view
to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value,
disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the
evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as
gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has
to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground
for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for
the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17732
5 CRR-2243-2025
conviction. (See : Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra
Bhimraj Bijjaya)".
The reproduced portion supports the observation made by this court
herein above. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charge
against the petitioner/accused under Sections 103(1), 248 (B) and 230 of
BNS Act and Section 25(1)(1-b)/27 of the Arms Act as stated herein above.
Therefore, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial court along with its record for
information.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
