Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 929 (ALL)

Murashad v. State of U. P.

2015-04-21

VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur in Case No.2066 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No.466 of 2006 (State Vs. Murasad and others), under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur, whereby the discharge application of the revisionists has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists are innocent persons, who have no criminal history and the F.I.R. lodged against them is a counter blast of Case Crime No.17 of 2006, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, which has been instituted from the side of the revisionists against opposite parties. It has further been submitted that from the perusal of the entire evidence on record it appears that no offence is made out against the revisionists under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., therefore, the impugned order dated 05.02.2015, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions by drawing the attention of this Court to the observations of court below in order dated 05.02.2015, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that in the injury report of Nasir Khan, fracture of tooth along with other injuries was found by the doctor concerned. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that in wake of the injury report and the other prima facie evidence available against the revisionists both of whom are named in the F.I.R., the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application, moved by the revisionists, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The impugned order shows that the court below has discussed in detail about the prima facie evidence as available on record. At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record at the initial stage of framing charges is to be considered by the court concerned. 6. Only prima facie evidence as available on record at the initial stage of framing charges is to be considered by the court concerned. 6. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173 , Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge. 7. In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI); 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. 8. In Omwati v. State; AIR 2001 SC 1507 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. 9. In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. 10. In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record, which has been discussed in detail by the court below, the revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed. 11. The revision is accordingly dismissed.