Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 192 (MP)

Raju @ Rajendra v. State of M. P.

2022-02-03

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2022
ORDER 1. This criminal revision under sections 397, 401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, Distt. Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.41/2019, by which the charges under sections 323/34, 307/34, 302/34 of IPC have been framed. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that a Dehati Nalishi was lodged by Shailendra Dangi that on 4.5.2019 he along with his friends Ankit Panthi, Abhishek Raghuvanshi and Anshul Sharma had gone to Bombay Vilas Dhabha for having their meals. It was around 09:30 in the night. Co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, his friend Shubham Raghuvanshi and Roshan Rajpoot, came on a Scooty. They came to the complainant and started alleging as to why they are staring at them and on this issue, fight took place between the parties. Shubham assaulted on the forehead of the complainant Shailendra Dangi, as a result, he sustained injuries. Accordingly, he was taken to medical store for his treatment. Accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, Roshan and Shubham also came on the Scooty and the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel fired a gunshot causing injury on the chest of Anshul Sharma. Co-accused Roshan Rajpoot assaulted Ankit Panthi by knife and Shubham Raghuvanshi also scuffled with the complainant. Incident was witnessed by Rahul Baghel, Sanjay Gupta, Ramu Pal and Sachin Namdev who were standing on the spot. It is submitted that during the investigation, the police recorded the memorandum of the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, who stated that the country made pistol and three live cartridges were purchased by him from the applicant for consideration of Rs.5,000/- and the country made pistol and two live cartridges are kept in his house, which were accordingly seized. It is submitted that except this part of the memorandum of the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, there is no other evidence against the applicant to show that he was ever involved in commission of offence. Even assuming that the applicant had sold the country made pistol and three cartridges to the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, still then he cannot be charged for offence under sections 323/34, 307/34 and 302/34 of IPC. Memorandum of the co-accused which does not lead to discovery of fact, is not admissible under sections 25, 26 of the Evidence Act. 3. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. Memorandum of the co-accused which does not lead to discovery of fact, is not admissible under sections 25, 26 of the Evidence Act. 3. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. However, it is fairly conceded that except the memorandum of the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel to the effect that he had purchased the country made pistol and three live cartridges from the applicant, there is no other evidence against the applicant to implicate him in commission of offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. However, it is fairly conceded that except the memorandum of the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel to the effect that he had purchased the country made pistol and three live cartridges from the applicant, there is no other evidence against the applicant to implicate him in commission of offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The trial Court has framed the following charges: ^^U;k;ky;&r`rh; vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] xatcklkSnk] ftyk fofn'kk ¼e/; Áns'k½ l= Ádj.k Øaekd&41@2019 vkjksi i= ¼vkt fnukad 20-12-2019 dks fufeZr½ eSa lrh'k paæ ekyoh;] r`rh; vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] xatcklkSnk ftyk fofn'kk ¼eŒÁŒ½ vki vfHk;qDr jktw mQZ jktsUæ tSu iq= feV~Bwyky tSu mez 52 fuoklh jktkSnk jksM+ cklkSnk ij fuEukuqlkj vkjksi vf/kjksfir djrk gaw%& 1- vkius mDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij lg&vfHkqDr NksVw mQZ latho c?ksy ,oa 'kqHke j?kqoa'kh ds lkFk feydj vkgr 'kSysUæ d¨ LosPN;k migfr dkfjr djus dk lkekU; vk'k; fufeZr fd;k] mDr lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj.k esa lg&vfHkqDr NksVw mQZ latho c?ksy ,oa jks'ku jktiwr us vkgr 'kSysUæ ds lkFk ekjihV dj] mls LosPN;k migfr dkfjr dh vkSj ,slk djds vkius og vijk/k fd;k] tks èkkjk 323@34 HkkŒnŒlaŒ ds rgr~ n.Muh; gksdj bl U;k;ky; ds fopkj.k esa gSA 2- vkius mDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij lg&vfHkqDr 'kqHke j?kqoa'kh ,oa N¨Vw mQZ latho o?ksy ds lkFk feydj vkgr vafdr iaFkh dh lk'k; e`R;q dkfjr djus dk lkekU; vk'k; fufeZr fd;k vkSj mDr lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj.k esa vkius@lg&vfHkqDrx.k us vkgr vafdr iaFkh dks ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa Ágkj dj pkdw ls pksVsa igqapkbZ fd ;fn mDr pksVksa ds dkj.k vkgr vafdr iaFkh dh e`R;q gks tkrh rks vki gR;k ds vijk/k ds nks"kh gksrs vkSj ,slk djds vkius og vijk/k fd;k] t¨ /kkjk 307@34 HkkŒnŒlaŒ ds rgr~ n.Muh; gksdj bl U;k;ky; ds fopkj.k esa gSA 3- mDr ?kVuk fnukad] le; ,oa LFkku ij mDr lg&vfHkqDrx.k ds lkFk feydj e`rd va'kqy 'kekZ dh lk'k; e`R;q dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls mlds lhus esa xksyh ekjdj mldh e`R;q dkfjr dj gR;k dkfjr dh tks /kkjk 302@34 HkkŒnŒfoŒ ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k gksdj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku ds vUrxZr gSA mDr vkijkf/kd d`R;@vkjksi bl U;k;ky; ds ÁlaKku ds varxZr gSa vkSj bl U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.kh; ;ksX; gSaA vr% eSa funsZ'k nsrk gwa fd vkidk mDr vkjksi ds fy, fopkj.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk,A** 6. It is the case of the applicant that neither there is any evidence to the effect that the applicant was actively involved in commission of offence of murder, nor there is any evidence of conspiracy. The only allegation is that of sale of one country made pistol along with three live cartridges for an amount of Rs.5,000/- and the charges who have been framed against the applicant are prima facie not made out from the evidence which has been collected. 7. From the plain reading of the charges, it appears that the trial Court has framed the charges in a casual manner. The order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the trial Court before framing the charges, has also been placed on record. 8. It is true that detailed appreciation of evidence at the time of framing charges is not required, but nothing has been mentioned in the order as to how the trial Court came to a conclusion that there is sufficient and prima facie material against the applicant to raise a grave suspicion that he has committed the murder of Anshul Sharma or caused injuries to Ankit Panthi and Shailendra. The trial Court has also not considered the effect of sections 25 and 26 of Evidence Act. Further, the effect of section 8 of Evidence Act as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600 has also not been taken into consideration. Thus, it is clear that the charges have been framed without due application of mind. It is true that a roving enquiry is not required at the stage of framing of charges, but the trial Court cannot act as a Post Office of the prosecution and it has to apply its mind as to whether the allegations prima facie warrant the framing of charges or not. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda District Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.41/2019 cannot be uphold. Accordingly, it is quashed. 10. The matter is remanded back and the trial Court is directed to reconsider the question of framing of charges qua the applicant by passing a detailed order. 11. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of one month from today. 12. Accordingly, it is quashed. 10. The matter is remanded back and the trial Court is directed to reconsider the question of framing of charges qua the applicant by passing a detailed order. 11. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of one month from today. 12. With aforesaid observations, the revision is finally disposed of.