Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 642 (ALL)

UDIT RAJPOOT v. STATE OF Uttar Pradesh

2018-03-16

RAJIV GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 3.2.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Session Trial No. 172 of 2017 (State vs. Dhanpat and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 361 of 2017, under Sections 302, 506 IPC, P.S. Rath, District- Hamirpur, whereby the court below has rejected the discharge application of the revisionist. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that on account of non payment of the due amount, there was an altercation between the revisionist and the complainant's party, consequent to which, the revisionist is said to have assaulted the deceased along with two other persons by iron rod on his head, due to which he received serious injuries and later succumbed to his injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that taking into the consideration entire material available on record, the case would not travel beyond Section 304 IPC and even the police registered the case under Section 308 IPC and after death of the victim, the case was converted into section 302 IPC. Therefore, the impugned order dated 3.2.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is against the material on record and passed without appreciating the evidence on record and as such the order be set aside. 5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that in wake of the specific allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie evidence is available against the revisionist and the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I have carefully perused the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA. 7. It is well settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of 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. 7. It is well settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of 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 is to be considered by the Court concerned at the initial stage of framing charges. 8. In the case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) JIC 289 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that that at the time of framing of charge, the trial court is required to see and consider only the Police Papers under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge. 9. In the case of Soma Chakravarty vs. State (through) CBI), 2007 (2) JIC 691 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the time of framing of charge, 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. 10. In the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjay Choudhary & Ors., 2008 (3) JIC 619 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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. 11. In the case of Omwati vs. State, AIR 2001 SC 1507 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has restricted the High Court from interfering by holding 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. 12. 11. In the case of Omwati vs. State, AIR 2001 SC 1507 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has restricted the High Court from interfering by holding 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. 12. In the case of Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Panjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bizza, 1991 JIC 169 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court may for limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even in that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. 13. Thus, it is well settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of the charge, only prima facie case is to be seen and the Court cannot make roving enquiry into the evidence collected during the course of investigation. 14. In wake of the aforesaid reasons and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and prima-facie evidence available on record, there does not seems to be any illegality, impropriety or any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. 15. The present revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.