Lakhan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8013 of 2011 (4) dt.26-11-2012 day his father along with Suryadev Manjhi son of Nageshwar Manjhi and Moth Manjhi jointly were taking the pumping set of Lakhan Singh, petitioner of this case to his Khaliyan at the bank of a river. It has been alleged that when the aforesaid labourers along with victim were ascending upward they lost balance, there was a fall of pumping set on the body of victim caused injury. It has been alleged that his father was treated in a hospital but ultimately, his father died. It has further been alleged that the petitioner had not provided any financial assistance for the treatment of his father.

4. The Police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet for offence u/s 304 I.P.C. and on that basis, the court below took cognizance. Later on, an application dated 3.8.2010 was filed and the court below by the impugned order rejected the discharge application by the impugned order.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that from the fact mentioned in the F.I.R. it does not constitute an offence, as four persons were carrying the said pumping set and when they lost balance due to uneven level of land, there was a fall of pumping set on the body of the victim, father of the informant, and he did not die just thereafter, but died after being released from the hospital. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8013 of 2011 (4) dt.26-11-2012

6. It has been submitted, the FIR itself shows that there was no menceria causing injury to the father of the informant but it was an accident where the petitioner did not play any role as there is no allegation that petitioner had even touched his body rather the accident took place due imbalance while carrying pumping set and the cause of accident cannot be attached to the petitioner. There is no allegation that the petitioner had any way caused any harm to the father of the informant, and as such, even if it is taken to its face value, no offence is made out against the petitioner.

7. This Court is conscious of the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1960 S.C. 866 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court provided three grounds which are as follows:- (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against institution continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. (ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8013 of 2011 (4) dt.26-11-2012 taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. (iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under S. 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8013 of 2011 (4) dt.26-11-2012 whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in A.I.R. 1992 SC 604 (Para-108 to this judgment) has held as follows:- (i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizance offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 155 (2) of the Code. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8013 of 2011 (4) dt.26-11-2012 (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizance offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155 (2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8013 of 2011 (4) dt.26-11-2012 (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

9. In this case the basic fact which emerges from the fact involved in this case that the victim was carrying the pump- set of the petitioner with the help of three other persons. All were labourers of the petitioner and carrying pump-set from his house at the place situated at bank of the river. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the time of framing of charge the court has to see as to whether the material on record gives grave/strong suspicion. In case of suspicion the accused will not be asked to face the trial but in a case of grave and strong suspicion the matter would be otherwise and he will be asked to stand the trial. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8013 of 2011 (4) dt.26-11-2012 the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases. It is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. At the stage of framing of charge the court is not required to examine the probative value of the evidence and is not required to see the end result of the trial. The court below is required to see the proof beyond reasonable doubt but not at the stage of charge only strong or grave suspicion is sufficient for framing of charge. This is apparent from the view that has taken by the Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and another, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and others, reported in A.I.R. 1977 SC 1489 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if there is no material on the record on the basis of which any Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8013 of 2011 (4) dt.26-11-2012 tribunal could reasonably come to the conclusion that the accused were in any manner connected with the incident leading to the chance of conviction. The High Court is, therefore, justified in determining whether there are sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused to determine the question whether material on record, if unrebutted can be a reasonable ground of his conviction. In nutshell for the purpose of framing the charge it has to be seen, the materials which are available on record creates grave or strong suspicion, as the court is not required to see probative value of evidence that has come during investigation nor the court is required to see the end result either conviction or acquittal.

11. In this case there are some admitted facts. As it is apparent from the record that the victim was an employee of the petitioner working with the petitioner for one and half years. He was carrying the pump-set along with three persons. When they were ascending, due to imbalance, the pump-set had fallen to his body, victim received injury and he was treated in the hospital and later on he was released from the hospital but after some time the victim died. From the admitted fact it appears that the petitioner was going along with them. There is no material to show that the petitioner was any way connected with the fall of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8013 of 2011 (4) dt.26-11-2012 the pumping-set as persons imbalanced due to uneven level of land and ultimately fall on the body of the victim. From the aforesaid fact it does not disclose any act was done by the petitioner, any way connecting with the fall of pump set on the body of victim. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot fall in the mischief of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. As there was relationship of master and servant, the victim has met with an accident in course of employment can be a matter of compensation but will not be case of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and as such the present case does not fall in the category of strong and grave suspicion.

12. In view of the fact and law as stated hereinabove this Court feels that continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of the court and it will give no result looking to the fact as stated hereinabove.

13. Accordingly the order dated 14.02.2011 is set aside, this application is allowed, and the petitioner is discharged from the case. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)