Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 345 (MP)

Ranveer Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-02-28

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Present criminal revision u/S. 397 r/w 401 of CrPC has been filed, challenging the order dated 06/02/2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind (MP) in Sessions Trial No.09/2019, by which charges have been framed under Sections 341, 294, 148, 307, in the alternative 307/149 (five counts), 427 IPC against all the revisionists- accused except revisionist No.1-accused and charges under Sections 341, 294, 148, 307, in the alternative 307/149 (five counts), 427 IPC and Section 25(1B)(a) r/w Section 27 of the Arms Act have been framed against revisionist No.1. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 24/11/2018 complainant Awadhesh lodged a Dehati Nalishi at Police Station Alampur, District Bhind alleging therein that on the date of incident i.e. 24/11/2018 at about 10:45 am, he had gone in his Scorpio vehicle along with Anirudh Pratap Singh, Ramu, Ashutosh Sharma, Kirat Singh Bhadoriya & Awdhesh Khan to Village Rurai for the purpose of public relations and when they reached near the house of Ranveer Singh (revisionist No.1), then all the accused persons obstructed the way by means of tractor. When they told the accused persons to remove the tractor, all the accused persons abused them in filthy languages and when they objected not to abuse them, accused Ranveer Singh fired from his ''Katta'' which hit at the dis-board of the vehicle and other co-accused persons also committed ''marpeet'' by means of lathi by which, the companions of the complainant, namely, Ashutosh Sharma and Ramu alias Rampratap were sustained injuries on their hands and legs. Other companions of the complainant, namely, Kirat Singh Bhadoriya, Anirudh Pratap Singh and Awadhesh Khan ran away from the spot in order to save their life and thereafter, all the accused persons surrounded the complainant and also committed ''marpeet'' with him. On the basis of which, the aforesaid FIR has been registered. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and after completion of investigation and other formalities, police filed challan before the Court below and vide impugned order, charges against accused revisionists have been framed as mentioned in para 1 of this order. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed at the instance of revisionists. 3. Challenging the impugned order of framing charges, learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the Court below did not appreciate the evidence and materials properly and committed grave error in framing charges against the revisionists. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed at the instance of revisionists. 3. Challenging the impugned order of framing charges, learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the Court below did not appreciate the evidence and materials properly and committed grave error in framing charges against the revisionists. It is further submitted that as per the MLC reports, all the injured including complainant/victim were sustained simple injuries and nobody had sustained either any grievous injury or any firearm injury in the incident. The gunshot fire caused by accused Ranveer Singh (revisionist No.1) was hit at dis-board of the vehicle and it did not hit anybody. It is further submitted that the revisionists- accused cannot be prosecuted with the aid of Section 149 of IPC, as there was no common object or intention for committing murder of the complainant, therefore, prima facie no offence is made out against them u/S. 307 with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. At the most, the act done by accused persons so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others, shall be punishable u/S. 336 IPC. Due to political influence, police has falsely registered the impugned FIR by roping them in criminal case. It is further submitted that a cross-case has been registered against the complainant party at the same Police Station vide Crime No.121/2018 for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506, 147, 148, 188, 171(dha) of IPC and Section 133 of the Representation of People Act. Therefore, impugned FIR and other consequential criminal proceedings initiated thereof deserve to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel as well as counsel for the complainant supported the impugned order of framing charges and submitted that prima facie, offence is made out against the revisionists. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object or intention of that assembly, or such as the members or that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of committing of that offence, is a member of same assembly, is guilty of that offence. In the incident, all the accused persons were unlawfully assembled with common object and caused injuries to injured as well as to complainant/victim by means of deadly weapons like lathi and firearm. In the incident, all the accused persons were unlawfully assembled with common object and caused injuries to injured as well as to complainant/victim by means of deadly weapons like lathi and firearm. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons including complainant/victim and considering the nature of allegations made against accused, prima facie an offence is made out against them. Therefore, the Court below has rightly framed charges against them vide impugned order. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this revision. 5. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the documents available on record. 6. As regards framing of charges and quashing the same, the law is well-settled. 7. In the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4 , it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:- '10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.' 8. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 , it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:- '12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial [See Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra)]. 14. We have perused the records and we agree with the above views expressed by the High Court. We find that in the alleged trap no police agency was involved; the FIR was lodged after seven days; no incriminating articles were found in the possession of the accused and statements of witnesses were recorded by the police after ten months of the occurrence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that not to speak of grave suspicion against the accused, in fact the prosecution has not been able to throw any suspicion. We are, therefore, of the opinion that not to speak of grave suspicion against the accused, in fact the prosecution has not been able to throw any suspicion. We, therefore, hold that no prima facie case was made against the appellant. 9. In the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 , it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:- '21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:- (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed 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. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at 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. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.' 10. In the case of State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava reported in AIR 2017 SC 3698 , it is held by the Apex Court as under:- '23 The legal position is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge the court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him the court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. The court is required to consider the 'record of the case' and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the section exists, then the court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case.' 11. Similarly, in the case of Soma Chakravarti Vs. State, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 403 ], it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. Before framing a charge, the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. Whether the accused committed the offence or not, can only be decided in the trial. The charge may although be directed to frame when there exists the strong suspicion but it is also trite that the Court must come to a prima facie finding that there exists some material therefor. 12. Further, this Court in the case of Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. vs. Satish Rohra, reported in 2005 (4) MPLJ 380 , has held in the following manner:- "6. I have heard the learned Counsel of both the parties and carefully perused the evidence and the material on record. 12. Further, this Court in the case of Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. vs. Satish Rohra, reported in 2005 (4) MPLJ 380 , has held in the following manner:- "6. I have heard the learned Counsel of both the parties and carefully perused the evidence and the material on record. Before considering the evidence and the material on record for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issuance of process has been made out or not, it may be mentioned at the very outset that the various documents and the reports filed by the petitioners/Company along with the petition can not be looked into at the stage of taking cognizance or at the stage of framing of the charge. The question whether prima facie case is made out or not has to be decided purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of taking cognizance or even at the stage of framing of the charge in order to thwart it. That right is granted only at the stage of trial. At this preliminary stage the material produced by the complainant alone is to be considered.' 13. If the allegations made against the accused are considered in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then it is clear as noon-day that there is sufficient material available on record to presume that while considering the nature of injuries sustained by injured including the complainant/victim as well as the nature of offence, it cannot be said that all accused persons in furtherance of their common object or intention, have not used any deadly weapons causing injuries to the injured including the complainant/victim in the alleged incident. The Court below has considered all the materials with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that all the accused have committed offence. The Court below has analyzed the materials for the purpose of finding out whether or not prima facie case against the accused persons has been made out. Truthfulness as well as veracity of statements or circumstances or documents of prosecution cannot be questioned at this stage by the defence. The Court below has analyzed the materials for the purpose of finding out whether or not prima facie case against the accused persons has been made out. Truthfulness as well as veracity of statements or circumstances or documents of prosecution cannot be questioned at this stage by the defence. On the basis of materials on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused persons might have committed the alleged offence. It is well-established principle of law that at the time of framing of charges, there is no scope to appreciate the entire evidence in details. The Court below has examined the case and found prima facie case against the accused persons. Therefore, the Court below did not commit any mistake in framing charges vide impugned order, as stated above. 14. Consequently, revision being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.