Bhairav Singh … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 323 of 2022 Bhairav Singh …. …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. ...Opp. Party CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND -------- For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. -------- 11/ 09.08.2023 This Cr. Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Bhairav Singh against the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XXII, Ranchi
Legal Reasoning
in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1193 of 2021 arising out of S.T.No.260 of 2021 Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 05 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.1219 of 2021 whereby the discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the name of the petitioner figured in the F.I.R. yet the general and omnibus allegations have been made against all the named accused and the unknown persons. No person of public has identified the petitioner at the place of occurrence. The presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence is not established except the police personnel who have stated in their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. So far as the injuries which the police personnel and other authorities had sustained, the same was simple in nature and no offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is made out. 3. The learned G.A.III vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that the name of the petitioner is figured in the F.I.R. 2 the allegations made against the named accused and the unknown persons are in regard to inflicting injuries indiscriminately with the weapons in their hand whereby the several police personnel sustained injuries and the learned court-below has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for discharge. 4. It is the settled law that while framing the charge the trial court has to go through the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also the evidence which was collected by the I.O. during investigation. 5. From the perusal of the F.I.R. it is found that this F.I.R. was lodged by the Police Officer, Sadanand Kumar with these allegations that on 04.01.2020 he received the information from Treta Control at 5:30 that the Chief Minister along with other were to proceed from the Project Bhawan to the Chief Minister residence, Kanke and when they came at Kishoreganj Chowk around 100 people armed with Lathi, Danda and rod came there and obstructed the convoy of Chief Minister and the mob also assaulted to the Traffic Police In- charge of the Police Station concerned who sustained injuries. The mob also vandalized the property and also hurling abuse assaulted. They were also raising slogan pertaining to the murder of a girl within the periphery of Police Station Ormanjhi, for the same reason they were protesting the convoy of Chief Minister. The mob was also asked to disperse but the mob became more furious and began to assault with Lathi, Danda and rod and also pelted bricks and stones whereby the 3 informant and other Police personnel sustained injuries. The public property was also damaged and the F.I.R. was lodged against 76 named accused including the petitioner. 6. In para No. 42 of the case diary the restatement of the informant was recorded wherein he reiterated the allegations made in the F.I.R. Statement of Amit Kumar Paswan, Police Officer, Ashok Kumar, Sunil Marandi, Yogendra Singh, Santosh Kumar all police personnel were recorded in para 44 to 49 of the case diary. Subodh Kumar Paswan in para 51 and Arbind Paswan in para 52 all these witnesses have also corroborated the prosecution story. 7. In para 137 of the case diary, it is stated that along with accused Bhairo Singh the I.O. reached to the C.C.R. Office where there were several C.C.T.V. footage Camera in Bahu Bazar and the 25 accused persons were also arrested on the basis of the C.C.T.V. footage. 8. In view of para 148 of the case diary the duplicate copy of the C.D. was also played in a laptop wherein the accused Bhairo Singh was identified being involved in the occurrence and while seeing this video footage Bhairo Singh had told certain things in regard to the occurrence in this para of the case diary. 9. In para 169 of the case diary also shows the role of the accused Bhairo Singh in commission of the alleged offence. The confessional statement of Bhairo Singh was also recorded during investigation Therefore from the statement of the police personnel and also on the basis of video footage and C.C.T.V. 4 footage the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offence is made out as all the named accused and unknown person having formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon in prosecution of common object had obstructed the convoy of the Chief Minister and while protesting the same they had assaulted with deadly weapons in their hand and also by pelting stones and bricks in discriminate way injured the police personnel. The intention of all the accused persons at the place of occurrence as from their conduct and act and the deadly weapons with which they were armed also assaulting indiscriminate way reflected that their intention was to commit murder. For the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. the nature of injury is not material but from the other circumstantial evidence such as the presence of the accused using words at the place of occurrence arms with which they were armed and the act and conduct of them at the place of occurrence also to be inferred for the intention to commit murder. 10. It is the settled law that while framing charge the Court has not to scrutinize the evidence and the marshalling or appreciation of the evidence is not permissible at the time of framing charge that is no mini trial in regard to the evidence can be conducted by the court while framing charge. Even if there is a slightest evidence or grave suspicion charge may be framed. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Palwinder Singh vrs. Balwinder singh (2008) 14 SCC 504: 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High 5 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 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) Marshalling suspicion. “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 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.” Mehra The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Sanjay Choudhary & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 681: is any ground 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 for presuming the there commission of offence by the accused. (underlined 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] .) [Ed. : Herein italicised.] 6 The Hon’ble Apex Court also held in Rukmini Narvekar vrs. 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 Padhi explained case [(2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] by the larger Bench therein to which the very same question had been referred in Debendra Nath The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Central Bureau of Investigation vrs. 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.” 11. In view of the submissions made and the material on record, the impugned order passed by the court-below needs no interference. 12. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision is hereby dismissed. P.K.S. (Subhash Chand, J.)