Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 541 (MP)

Rajjan v. State of M. P.

2015-05-06

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2015
JUDGMENT : Subhash Kakade, J. 1. This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 16.01.2015 passed by learned Fifty Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 572/2014, framing the charges against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 427, IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.04.2014, at about 01:30 am at Village Padariya Road, Padwar, District Jabalpur, applicant has fired by means of gun with intention to kill the complainant Uday Tiwari. The vehicle bearing No. MP02-CD-9250 of the complainant was also damaged. 3. On the basis FIR lodged by the complainant, the complainant medically got examined and investigation started. The Police recorded statements the complainant and other witnesses and after completion of due investigation, the applicant charge-sheeted. After committal proceeding, by the impugned order the aforesaid charges have been framed by the learned trial Court against the applicant, aggrieved by which this revision has been filed. 4. Shri S.N. Vishwakarma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is no named FIR against the applicant. No test identification parade has been conducted. The prosecution agency has also not seized any fire arm from the possession of the applicant. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on perusal of FIR as also the statements there is not an iota of evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged commission. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the story of the prosecution. On the aforesaid ground, he prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the applicant be discharged from the charges as mentioned above. 5. Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that learned trial court rightly and wisely framed charges against the applicant, hence, this revision deserves to be dismissed. Learned Panel Lawyer pointed out that witness Virendra Shukla stated that it was the applicant Rajjan Yadav, who fired. 6. On a careful perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses complainant Uday Tiwari and witness Virendra Shukla recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. prima facie case well founded and case is made out against the applicant for framing of charge. Learned Panel Lawyer pointed out that witness Virendra Shukla stated that it was the applicant Rajjan Yadav, who fired. 6. On a careful perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses complainant Uday Tiwari and witness Virendra Shukla recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. prima facie case well founded and case is made out against the applicant for framing of charge. At the stage of framing charge the Court cannot apply its judicial mind for the consideration whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. 7. 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. 8. After perusing the documents filed with the revision, particularly the charge-sheet prima facie well founded case is made out against the applicant. This revision of the applicant is related with the framing of charge, therefore, the applicant will not get the benefit of Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 which was an appeal filed by Amelandu Pal against his conviction on basis of full fledged trial. 9. It is a settled legal proposition that in a case where there is sufficient evidence against the accused which may establish the charge against him/her, the proceeding cannot be quashed - S. Khushboo v Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 . At this stage it is not required to go into the pros and cons of the prosecution evidence as required to discuss at the stage of passing of judgment by the trial Court. There is no need to sift and weigh or appreciate the prosecution evidence as well as defence available to the applicants and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out nor could be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. There is no need to sift and weigh or appreciate the prosecution evidence as well as defence available to the applicants and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out nor could be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 16.01.2015 warranting interference by way of this revision petition against framing of charge. Hence, the Revision is dismissed summarily.