Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2485 (ALL)

Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U. P.

2014-08-13

RANJANA PANDYA

body2014
JUDGMENT Ranjana Pandya, J.: - 1. This writ petition has been preferred to quash the impugned order dated 11.02.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Jaunpur rejecting criminal revision No. 414 of 2013 and order dated 03.07.2013 passed by A.C.J.M., Jaunpur rejecting the discharge application of the accused. Brief facts are that the first information report was lodged as case crime No. 1012 of 2008, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 336 and 452 I.P.C. at Police Station Madiyahu, District Jaunpur by the complainant Ashutosh Yadav alleging that on 08.12.2008 quarrel took place between the complainant and family members of Daya Shankar and Kolai where a complaint was made at Police Station Madiyahu. Thereafter on 09.12.2008 when both the parties returned to their homes after getting bail. At 04: 00 p.m., Daya Shankar, Vishwanath Rajan son of Daya Shankar, Ram Lal, Achchey Lal, Shyam Lal, Sahab Lal son of Kolai, Pawan son of Ram Chandra, Munna son of Batuk Bahadur and Shambhu Nath Yadav came to the house of the complainant and started assaulting the complainant and his companions in which Raj Nath, Sirtaz, Daya Ram and Amar Nath sustained injuries. On the hue and cry, many people came on the spot. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. 3. Counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit in which copies of injury reports of Sahab Lal Yadav and Daya Shankar have been filed. 4. Perusal of the record shows that a discharge application was moved before the A.C.J.M., which was rejected vide order dated 03.07.2013 against which criminal revision No. 414 of 2013 was presented to the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Jaunpur which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2014. 5. In 2014 (84) ACC 656 : (AIR 2014 SC (Cri) 730) (State of Tamilnadu v. N. Suresh Rajan and others) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as follows "We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post-office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post-office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage. Reference in this connection can be made to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ( AIR 2013 SC 52 ) in which, after analyzing various decisions on the point, this Court endorsed the following view taken in Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi): "11. 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 there from, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence." 6. It is well settled law that if there are ingredients of evidence against the accused, charges should be framed. Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010 (1) ACR 879 : ( AIR 2010 SC 663 ) Supreme Court (P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and another) has held that whether the materials at the hands of the prosecution are sufficient or not are matters for trial. At this stage, it cannot be claimed that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant and discharge is the only remedy. 7. The only ground that persons on the side of the accused also sustained injuries will not be a ground for discharge. As the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the time of framing of charge. 8. Hence, there is no substance in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.