Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 408 (UTT)

Jagroop Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-06-12

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this revision is made to order dated 01.05.2024, passed in Sessions Trial No.207 of 2023, State vs. Satnam Singh alias Tiger and others, by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By which, charges have been framed against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 34, 354 read with 34, 504 read with 34, 506 read with 34 and against Satnam Singh, charged under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 has also been filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. 3. The case is based on FIR No.117 of 2022, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 354, 307 IPC, Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar. According to it, on 09.05.2022, injured Joga Singh first abused by the applicants. Joga Singh conveyed it to the informant, with whom, he was working. When informant reached at the place of the incident, the FIR records that the applicants opened fire with their licensed firearms, which hit Joga Singh near his head. The informant and Joga Singh tried to escape. In the meanwhile, many persons came there including Mannat Kaur, the wife of Joga Singh. The FIR records that the revisionists also molested Mannat Kaur, did maar peet with her and her clothes were torn. 4. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the revisionists. On 23.09.2023, cognizance was taken and the revisionists were summoned to answer the accusation. At the stage of framing of the charge, arguments were advanced on behalf of the revisionists. On 19.03.2024, the court observed that there are sufficient material to frame charge against the revisionists for the offences, punishable under Sections 504, 506, 354 read with Section 34, 307 IPC and Section 30 of The Arms Act, 1959. Accordingly, on 01.05.2024, charges were framed against them. It is impugned herein. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that offence under Section 354 IPC is not made out. Witnesses Gurpreet Singh and Digbagh Singh have not supported the prosecution case on that count. The clothes torn were also not taken into custody by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the revisionists ought to have been discharged of the offence under Section 354 IPC. 6. Witnesses Gurpreet Singh and Digbagh Singh have not supported the prosecution case on that count. The clothes torn were also not taken into custody by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the revisionists ought to have been discharged of the offence under Section 354 IPC. 6. On the charge under Section 307 IPC, it is argued that the injury is simple in nature. It is also not clear that the injury was caused by the firearm and there is no FSL report. Therefore, this charge is also not made out. 7. Learned State counsel would submit that Dr. Gurpal Singh has stated that the injured has revealed that he has sustained gunshot injury. The injured had two lacerated wound, one on his head. It is argued that the victim Mannat Kaur has stated that she was molested and her clothes were torn by the revisionists. Therefore, it is argued that there is no reason to make any interference in this revision. 8. It is a stage of framing of charge. The level of satisfaction for framing of charge is quite distinct. The satisfaction should be on higher degree than that is required for taking cognizance, but in lesser degree that is required for recording a finding of guilt. 9. As per Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the Judge is of the opinion that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, charges can be framed. This Section reads as follows:- “228. Framing of charge.— (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which— (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused, and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.” 10. At the stage of framing of charge, the detailed analysis of entire evidence is not expected of. The satisfaction is to be recorded that there are grounds for framing charge and not beyond that. 11. The scope of revisional court on this aspect has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2012)9 SCC 460 . In para 12 and 13 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.” 12. The FIR states that the injured Joga Singh and Anup Singh were initially abused and assaulted and firearm were used in that incident and thereafter, when the wife of Joga Singh reached at the spot, she was molested and her clothes were torn away. All the revisionists have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 34, 354 read with 34, 504 read with 34, 506 read with 34 IPC. In addition to it, the revisionist Satnam Singh has also been charged for the offences punishable under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. The informant Anoop Singh, injured Joga Singh and Mannat Kaur have supported the prosecution case in their statement given to the Investigating Officer. The statements have been placed for perusal of the Court, which are Annexure No.3 to the revision. 13. Gurpreet Singh is also a witness. When he was questioned, he said that some abusive words were used to Mannat Kaur, but he did not see any molestation. Similarly, witness Dilbagh Singh has also stated so in his statement given to the Investigating Officer. What would be its effect that may not be conclusively determined at this stage. As stated, it is a stage of framing of charge. Anoop Singh, Joga Singh and Mannat Kaur, all have supported the prosecution case in their statements given under Sections 161 of the Code. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are grounds to presume that there are grounds for framing charge against the revisionists under Section 354 read with 34 IPC, which has rightly been framed and no interference on that aspect is required. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are grounds to presume that there are grounds for framing charge against the revisionists under Section 354 read with 34 IPC, which has rightly been framed and no interference on that aspect is required. 14. On the aspect of Section 307 IPC, it is the case of the prosecution, that at the place of incident the revisionists first abused informant Anoop Singh and injured Joga Singh. They were beaten up and in that sequel Jagroop Singh used his pistol, Satnam Singh used his rifle and Gurpreet Singh used a country made pistol and fires were opened. 15. Admittedly, three gunshot injuries were not sustained by the injured. The injury report has been filed as Annexure A4 with the revision. In it, the doctor records the probable bullet graze laceration, although, in his statement the doctor has stated that he did not recover any metal or article from the person of the injured. 16. In order to attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC, intention is important. What is the prosecution case is that all the three revisionists had opened fire. This Court is of the view that the court below has rightly formed an opinion that there are grounds for framing charge against the revisionists under Sections 307 read with 34 IPC. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that no interference is needed in the instant matter. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 18. The criminal revision is dismissed in limine.