Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 993 (JHR)

Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-08-07

SUBHASH CHAND

body2023
JUDGMENT : This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the court below wherein the discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on confession of the petitioner which is alleged to be made before the police and has no evidence in this regard. Prior to confession of the petitioner the dead body of deceased was recovered at a distance from the alleged place of occurrence. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. The relationship of the deceased and the petitioner was cordial. The motive as alleged in regard to illicit relation of the petitioner with Bhabhi has not been proved. The deceased was missing from the house of the petitioner, information of which he gave to the informant and the other relative. There is no sufficient material against the petitioner to frame the charge against him for the offence of murder. A CCTV footage of the house has not been properly verified by the police. The statement of the witnesses who are examined during investigation are not conclusive indicating the petitioner to be the perpetrator of the crime. The entire case is based upon suspicion, accordingly, submitted that the discharge application which was rejected by the court below bears illegality. 3. The learned APP and learned counsel for the informant opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that from the evidence collected by the IO during investigation and as per the FIR allegation, the charge is made out against the petitioner and the court below has rightly rejected the application for discharge. 4. As per FIR allegations the daughter of the informant was married with Sanjeev Kumar Singh in the year 2010. A demand of Rs.2 lac and a Maruti car was made. The daughter of the informant had also moved the application in the year 2014 before the Sub-divisional Officer wherein she had also stated that her husband had illicit relation with his Bhabhi and the third time the daughter of the informant became pregnant and gave birth to a female girl but he was never ready to keep her with him. The daughter of the informant had also moved the application in the year 2014 before the Sub-divisional Officer wherein she had also stated that her husband had illicit relation with his Bhabhi and the third time the daughter of the informant became pregnant and gave birth to a female girl but he was never ready to keep her with him. In 2017, the petition for divorce bearing no.66 of 2017 was also decided on the basis of compromise in the year 2019; and thereafter, the daughter of the informant began to reside in her matrimonial house. Again all the named accused in the FIR again began to torture the daughter of the informant and further reiterated the demand of dowry. The informant had also given the amount of Rs.1 lac after having sold his land in the year 2020. For sometime, the relations became good but again the situation deteriorated. The daughter of the informant remained in her in-law's house for six months. On 25.09.2021 the son-in-law of the informant informed over the phone that his daughter had been missing from 3 days and despite search no where-about was known by him and the FIR was lodged with the utter believe that his daughter had been murdered and the dead body had been hidden under the conspiracy by the members of in-law's house. 5. The informant in her restatement corroborated the prosecution story. The husband of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar Singh was arrested and he confessed before the police, that on 22.09.2021 in the evening there was some altercation between him and his wife at 10 O'clock in night. He came to the house after having closed his shop. Again the altercation took place between him and his wife. His wife had blamed him and being provoked from the same, he strangulated his wife; but at the time of occurrence his elder daughter alongwith her grand-mother was also in the room and other members of the family were in another room of the house. He took the dead body of wife through the Alto Car JH 02 AN 3463 and went to Aurangabad via. Champaran and threw the dead body near the Dev More of GT Road in a nala and then he came back from Aurangabad via. Champaran to his house Hazaribagh. 6. He took the dead body of wife through the Alto Car JH 02 AN 3463 and went to Aurangabad via. Champaran and threw the dead body near the Dev More of GT Road in a nala and then he came back from Aurangabad via. Champaran to his house Hazaribagh. 6. It came in the case diary that the hard disk of DVR was also taken out by the accused Sanjeev Kumar Singh and same was broken. The witness Bandana Singh, Nutan Singh both corroborated the prosecution story in her statement under section 161 of Cr.PC. In view of para-12 of the case diary for recovery of the dead body the police proceeded alongwith accused Sanjeev Kumar Singh and on 23.09.2021 the dead body was recovered from a nala near by the GT Road hidden the periphery of Aurangabad Mufasil Police Station. The dead body was also identified by the relative of the deceased and the inquest report was prepared. 7. Earlier to this as per information of Vijay Paswan constable 8/6 on 23.09.2023 at 7:45 pm, a dead body of a female was seen by him which could not be identified despite effort made by the police and information of the same given to the station in-charge of Mufasil of Police Station. As per para-28 of the case diary, the manager of the toll stated to the police officer that Alto car JH 02 AN 3463 had gone from Hazaribagh to Barhi on 23.09.2021 at 1:44 am and the manager of the Barhi toll on contact also stated that the very car went from Barhi to Champaran and again came to know on contact over the phone by the toll Manager the same went to Aurangabad and came back on 23.09.2021 at 4:30 am from Aurangabad to Champaran. The CDR detail and tower location also corroborated this fact in view of para-42 of the case diary. As per postmortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained as viscera was preserved. 8. In view of the allegations made in the FIR and also the evidence collected by the IO, there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner for the offence alleged. 9. The whole case is based on circumstantial evidence. At the time of framing charge the court is not required to make the scrutiny of the evidence. 8. In view of the allegations made in the FIR and also the evidence collected by the IO, there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner for the offence alleged. 9. The whole case is based on circumstantial evidence. At the time of framing charge the court is not required to make the scrutiny of the evidence. The marshalling or appreciation of the evidence is not permissible at the stage of framing charge. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Palwinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh (2008) 14 SCC 504 : 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it entered into the realm of appreciation of evidence at the stage of the framing of the charges itself. The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charges can also be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the Court at that point of time. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] wherein it was held as under: (SCC p. 579, para 23) “23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, clearly the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. Satish Mehra case [Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn., (1996) 9 SCC 766 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1104] holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjay Choudhary & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 681 : 11. Sections 227, 239 and 245 deal with discharge from criminal charge. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [ (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] it was noted that at the stage of framing the charge the court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. (underlined [Ed. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [ (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] it was noted that at the stage of framing the charge the court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. (underlined [Ed. : Herein italicised.] for emphasis) The court has to see while considering the question of framing the charge as to whether the material brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with the trial. Nothing more is required to be inquired into. (See Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia [ (1989) 1 SCC 715 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 285] and State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid [ (1995) 1 SCC 684 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 266].) 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held in Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors. A.I.R. 2009 SC 1013 : 38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such materials as are indicated in Section 227 CrPC can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482 CrPC the court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi case [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] by the larger Bench therein to which the very same question had been referred. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC Cr. 315 : “The appreciation of evidence, at the stage of discharge is impermissible what is required is to be seen is whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused.” 14. In view of the evidence collected by the IO and the allegations made in the FIR, the impugned order passed by the court below whereby the application for discharge has been rejected though based on different ground needs no interference. 15. In view of the evidence collected by the IO and the allegations made in the FIR, the impugned order passed by the court below whereby the application for discharge has been rejected though based on different ground needs no interference. 15. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed.