High Court
Case Details
IN THB HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH A1LBILASPUR Criminal Revision No. p3 /2013 APPLICANTS 1. KRISHNA, S/0 MAHETTAR SHRIWAS, AGED ABOUT35YEARS 2. MAHETTAR, S/0 CHOTAN NAAE, AGED ABOUT 70YEARS 3. RAM KUMAR, S/0 MAHETTAR SHRIWAS, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 4. RAMCHARAN, S/0 GHESLU YADAV, AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS 5.
Legal Reasoning
witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as the medical report given by the Doctor after examining the injured persons and, as such, it cannot be said that prima facie a case is made out against the revision petitioners in respect of all the said offences for framing charges against them. 8. So far as objections of the counsel for the revision petitioners regarding non- filing of documents in proof of the facts that the persons were public servants and were discharging their official duties at the relevant poiflt of time is concerned, the a .;i^^%'?^^?'^^?^^^^%^%^^^^!;^^@^^i^^^^'WSSi^?%S^^^E3;g^^S:^^?i^-^,~^^ 'a £""5^ -^\ matter has to be decided during the trial. At thisstage, there is no reason to believe the report lodged by Vivekanand Jha, in which he has specifically mentioned that he is a member of Indian Forest Service and was posted as In-charge, Forest Range Office, Kota, at the relevant time, along with subordinate staff and they were discharging their official duties when the incident had occurred. 9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has time and again held that at the stage of framing charge even a grave suspicion is sufficient. In this connection, thejudgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 needs to be mentioned. Extract of the judgment is reproduced below:- "Reading Sections. 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance trial if proved, would be ineQmpatible with the whether innocence of the accused pr not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused in not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matte under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. (Para 4) the facts, 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 a 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 there is no sufficient ground for open to the Court to say that proceedingagainst the accused. (Para4) If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt ofthe accused even iffully 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. (Para 4). If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227.'r~~—~— :•»;. -^ 10.
Arguments
VISHNU, S/0 MAHEWAR SHRIWAS, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENT OF: TAKTOEYA, POLICE STATION KUKDUR, POST , DISTRICT KABIRDHAM, C.G VERSUS RESPONDENT STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH POLICE STATION KUKDUR, DISTRICT KABIRDHAMyC.Q, ^--.-^ <t-^^SW..^ '^•-•""•18S511iKI:'w~ p,eseiA°*°l CRIMINAL REVISION U/S. 3&7 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973:- s ^s^s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : G. MINHAJUDDIN, J. Criminal Revision No. 173/2013 APPLICANTS Krishna and others Versus RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 40^ot the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 Present: Shri N.S. Dhurandhar, counsel forthe revision petitioners. Shri Devesh Verma, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(Oral) (Passedon 13.03.2013) This revision has'been filed, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., against the impugned order dated 16-01-2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham in Sessions Trial No. 21/2012, whereby charges have been framed against the revision petitioners in respect of offences punishable under Sections 148, 294, 506 Part II,353,332,333,427 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. With the consent of learne.d counsel for the parties, the revision petition is heard finally. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners has contended that so far as charges in respect of offences punishable under Section 353, 332, 333, 427 read with 149 of IPC are concerned, prima facie, no case is made out against the revision petitioners because no document has been filed along with the charge- sheet, on the basis of which, it can be said that the first informant as well as the persons who had gone along with the first informant, were public servants and the incident had occurred while they were discharging their official duties. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners has further contended that to the extent of framing charges for offences under Section 353, 332, 333, 427 read with Section 149 of the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and the revision IPC, petitioners are entitled to be discharged to that extent. ^^^;^^S^ts^B^^ 'i'^sss^^sssis^s^^^^si^^^^^^^^^^s^^^^M^^^^^^s^^^^^^ -2-- 4. On the other hand, learned counsel forthe State has contended that there is ample evidence on record, on the basis ofwhich, it can be said thatthere is a prima facie case in respect of all the offences for which charges have been framed against the revision petitioners. 5. From perusal of the copy of charge-sheet including F.1.R. and statements of thewitnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is found that, on the date of incident, Vivekanand Jha, who is a member of Indian Forest Service and was posted as In-charge, Range officetelong with Shravan Singh, Dy. Ranger, Lormi, Ram Swaroop Rathore, Forester, Lormi, Raju Dhimar, Forest Guard, Lormi, Raju Thakur, Forest Guard, Lormi, Suraj Ram Singh, Forest Guard, Lormi, Virendra Singh Rajput, Forest Guard, Lormi, Krishna Kumar Yadav, Forest Guard, Kota, Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Forest Guard, Kota, Dilip Kumar Divedi, Forest Guard, Kota, Sonu Yadav, Driver of vehicle No. C.G 02 /5900, Rakesh Kaiwarth, SDriver of vehicle No. C.G. 02 F/0031, Maheshwar Baghel, Forest Guard, Kota and Laxminarayan Chandrakar, Forest Guard, Kota had gone to village-Taktoeya, Kakdur for seizing a TATA 407 vehicle (bearing registration N6: C.G. 10 A/6049) in connection with offence No. 6808/01 (POR) dated 06.03.2012 of Forest Range, Kota and, while discharging their offidal duties, they were seizing the said vehicle, at that time, the revision petitioners had caused obstruction in discharging their official duties and after filthily abusing them had assaulted the In-charge, Forest Range Office which resulted in simple and grievous injuries to them. 6. On the basis of report lodged by Vivekanand Jha, a member of Indian Forest Service posted as In-charge, Forest Range Office, a Criminal Case No. 39/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,149,186, 353, 332, 294, 506 (2), 427 of the revision petitioners at Police Station-Kukdur (Kabirdham) and, after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C agajnst the revision petitioners. IPC was registered against 7. The facts mentioned in the F.1.R. stand corroborated from the statements of
Decision
In view of the above, it cannot be said that the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund has committed any illegality and impropriety in passing the impugned order dated 16.1.2013 whereby charges have been framed against the revision petitioners in respect of offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 333 and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC. As a result, the revision petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and 11. is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. - ^ -_ ._ _ __..____._ Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Ravi 's"1