…. Gopal Prasad Soni, aged about 34 years, son of Gulab Saw Soni, resident v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Uttam Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Surendra Ram, resident
Case Details
2025:JHHC:38739 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.781 of 2022 …. Gopal Prasad Soni, aged about 34 years, son of Gulab Saw Soni, resident of Village – Madan (Tetrai), P.O.- Tetrai, P.S.-Panki, Palamau (Jharkhand) ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Uttam Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Surendra Ram, resident of Baksidih Mohalla road, near Congress Office, P.S.-Giridih, District-Giridih ……Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Md. Faiz, Advocate : Mr. Satish Prasad, APP …… CAV Judgement Delivered on 14.11.2025 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for challenging the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. Case.244/2022, by which the petition u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge, has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief is that, on 17.11.2021 at around 10.00 p.m in night, the informant and his wife namely Dipa Gupta, son Priyanshu Gupta, mother Devki Devi, after
Legal Reasoning
“Para-10:- If on the basis of the material on record, the Court would form prima facie opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame charge, though for conviction it is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant conviction. The Court is required to evaluate the material on record at the stage of Sections 227 or 239 of the Code, as the case may be, only with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with the presumption that materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate such material with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence.” 34. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. E. Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 at para17.3, 17.6 and 18 as follows:- “Para-17.3:-The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. Para-17.6:- The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. Para-18:- The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression. "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any. produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge. the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).” 9 2025:JHHC:38739 35. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors and in the case of Kanta Devi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 at para-39 as follows:- “Para-39:- The court while considering the question of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh where it has been held that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 Cr.P.C., if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then the court should proceed with the trial. 36. It is well settled that the defence of accused person cannot be seen at the stage framing of charges. 37. It is also well settled that there cannot be roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial being conducted. 38. Thus, the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. Case No.244/2022, is hereby affirmed. 39. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No.781 of 2022 is hereby dismissed Nishant/- (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 10
Arguments
having their dinner, they slept in their respective rooms. The Informant’s mother was in the west side room and he along with his wife and son were sleeping in east side room. It is alleged that on 18.11.2021 at around 02.00 a.m. 6-7 persons armed with deadly weapons such as Lathi-Danda and Sabbal had entered into his room and after taking informant, his wife and son in hostage, 1 2025:JHHC:38739 started looting his house. It is further alleged that one accused told the informant that the contractor has told him that informant has Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lacs Only) and further demanded such money from the informant by force or else he would be killed. The informant told him that he does not have any Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lacs Only) with him to how would he give such amount to him. After listening this, the accused tried to assault the informant with sabbal and the informant managed to step back but unfortunately, the same caused injury to informant’s son namely Priyanshu on his head. Thereafter, all accused persons have started to throw clothes and other items from Box and Almirah in order to search jewellery. In the meantime, the accused persons took jewellery from informant’s almirah such as Golden Rings, Chain, Bangles, Pearl jewellery, Locket, Silver anklets, Bichiya, one pack of Rs.200 notes, 3 packs of Rs.5000 notes and filled those in informant’s son’s wildcraft school bag. Furthermore, the head of all accused demanded the keys of informant’s car which was again denied by informant as he do not have any Car but he did not listen to him and then he went to informant’s mother’s room and by giving death threat, took Car’s key from informant’s drawer. The accused after their loot, four of them proceed towards Bus Stand by walking and three of them sat on Informant’s Hyundai Car (JH10BL4150) and ran away. It is also alleged that the accused have even looted informant’s VIVO V15 Smartphone (S-9693285806), his wife VIVO Mobile (SIM- 8409179555) and his son’s Realme Nazro 20 Mobile (SIM – 8340332500) respectively by locking the door of informant’s house. It is alleged that at 5.00 am morning, the informant 2 2025:JHHC:38739 shouted from his window and with the help of neighbours, they were rescued. Further, the informant learnt that the accused persons opened terrace’s gate via stairs. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, a case has been registered as Giridih Town P.S. Case No.214/2021 dated 18.11.2021 u/s 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saket Kumar learned APP as well as Md. Faiz learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the learned Court below is illegal, and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that there is no legal evidence against the petitioner. It is submitted that the I.O. (Investigation Officer) has stated that they have found molten gold weighing of 49.100 grams from the possession of the petitioner and he had seized the jewellery, Car and cash from the possession of the five (05) co-accused. It is submitted that the seized 49.100 grams of molten gold is private and legitimate property of the petitioner and he had purchased the gold from M/s Shyamli Jewellers and melted it in order to make new jewellery. 5. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses had identified him rather pointed out that one Aftab Mirza @ Bablu to be involved and hence, there is no legal evidence against him to frame charges under any sections. It is submitted that I.O. has not investigated with respect to the submission of application dated 11.12.2021 with respect to bill/invoice of his purchased gold items rather proceeded with the investigation of the case in concern with informant because every single statement is cogent and important in any case or trial which would corroborate that 3 2025:JHHC:38739 chain of incidents and evidences to bring out truth. 6. It is further submitted that on perusal of statement of witness there is no evidence available this petitioner. The petitioner has got nothing to do with the alleged occurrence and also, no such investigation has been conducted with respect to the application dated 11.12.2021 of the petitioner. 7. It is further submitted that the entire materials available in the case diary are self contradictory in nature which finds no support from any legal evidence or from its roots. 8. It is further submitted that the confessional statement of the co-accused is not admissible against the petitioner. It is submitted that the TIP Chart is blank and para-22 of the supplementary counter affidavit does not show as who had identified the said jewellery. Even the TIP chart does not show the name of the witnesses. The petitioner had also shown the receipt of 80 grams of gold which includes the 49.100 grams of gold sold by the other co-accused. 9. It is further submitted that the witnesses namely Uttam Kumar Gupta, Dipa Gupta, Priyanshu Gupta, Deepak Kumar Gupta and Kavita Gupta, whose statements were recorded in Para-3 Para-7 Para-Para-8, Para-9, Para-10 of the case diary, have barely stated about robbery in the house of the Informant and they have neither named nor identified this petitioner. 10. It is further submitted that the confessional statement of the Anand Kumar Mehta, who statement recorded at para-180 of the case diary is not reliable as he has falsely stated that the petitioner had given Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.Four lakhs) to him for 147 grams of gold. 11. It is further submitted that the conviction under Section 412 of IPC is not possible against the petitioner. It is submitted 4 2025:JHHC:38739 that the confessional statement of the petitioner recorded at Para-188 of the case diary is not admissible as his confessional statement was taken under coercion and he was kept in custody on 04.12.2021. 12. It is further submitted that the I.O. had committed grave error by submitting the police report to the effect that 49.100 grams of gold is legitimate property of the Informant without verification. 13. It is further submitted that the T.I.P parade was conducted and nobody has identified the petitioner. It is submitted that the owner of M/s. Shyamali Jwellers, Palamau namely Bipin Kumar has sworn his Affidavit (Annexure-3) that the petitioner has purchased gold from his shop and hence this Criminal Revision may be allowed and the petitioner may be discharged. 14. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that the order dated order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the learned Court below is fit and no interreference is required from this Court. 15. It is submitted that the witnesses namely Uttam Kumar Gupta, Dipa Gupta, Priyanshu Gupta, Deepak Kumar Gupta and Kavita Gupta, whose statements were recorded in Para-3 Para-7 Para-Para-8, Para-9, Para-10 of the case diary, have supported the prosecution case of robbery in the house of Informant. 16. It is submitted that the witnesses namely Anand Kumar Mehta and Bhuneshwar Beldar, whose statement have been recorded in Para-180 and Para-185 of the case diary have fully supported that the petitioner has paid Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.Four lakhs) for the said 49.100 grams of gold from the co-accused Satish. 17. It is submitted that the accused persons Anand Kumar Mehta, Bhuneshwar Beldar, Sanjay Vishwakarma, Raj Kumar 5 2025:JHHC:38739 Paswan and Sunil Sao, whose statement have been recorded in Para-180, Para-185, Para-194, Para-197 and Para-203, have fully supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the petitioner has confessed and admitted that they have taken Jewellery from the accused persons Satish Oraon and hence the prayer of discharge of the petitioner, is fit to be rejected and this Criminal Revision may be dismissed. 18. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that a dacoity was conducted in the house of the Informant Uttam Kumar Gupta, where the miscreants had fled away after looting the car (Hyundai grand i10), gold jewellery, silver chain one piece, two pieces of gold bangles, two pieces of gold ring, two new bundles notes of Rs.100/-, one new bundle note of Rs.20/-, one bundle old note of Rs.200/- and three bundles note of Rs.500/- i.e. and several other jewellery from the Informant and they have scattered the entire articles by breaking the almirah and boxes. 19. It appears that the Informant has shown suspicion against one contractor Aftab Mian @ Bablu. 20. It appears that Uttam Kumar Gupta, Dipa Gupta, Priyanshu Gupta, Deepak Kumar Gupta and Kavita Gupta, whose statements were recorded in Para-3 Para-7 Para-Para-8, Para-9, Para-10 of the case diary, have supported the prosecution case. 21. It appears that during course of investigation, the police had arrested one Bhuneshwar Beldar and recorded his confessional statement, of para 175 of the case diary, who had described the entire loot and dacoity from the house of the Informant. 22. It also appears that one the disclosure of co-accused Bhuneshwar Beldar, the police had recovered some gold and 6 2025:JHHC:38739 silver and also mobile phone of Vivo and Nokia Company and notes of denomination of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.500x30 notes = Rs.15,000/-) from the house of the Bhuneshwar Beldar which is mentioned in para 176 of the case diary. 23. It also appears that police had also recovered three pieces Bangles of CT gold, three pieces of necklace of CT Gold, two pieces of earing of CT gold, one silver plate, 66 notes of Rs.500/-, one realme narzo-20 mobile phone and one two keypad mobile phone and one key of car of Hyundai company from the house of co-accused Satish Oraon, which is mentioned in Para-178 of the case diary. Then, on the disclosure of the Bhuneshwar Beldar, the police had arrested Anand Kumar Mehta, who has also confessed his guilt at para-180 of the case diary and on the disclosure of Anand Mehta certain gold and silver jewellery and cash was recovered from his house which is mentioned in para-181 of the case diary. 24. Thereafter, the police arrived in the house of the petitioner on 04.12.2021 and recorded his confessional statement which is in Para-187 of the case diary, who had also admitted this guilt. 25. It appears that on the disclosure of the confessional statement of the petitioner, 49.100 grams of molten gold was recovered, which finds at para-188 of the case diary. 26. Thereafter, the police have recovered i-10 car from the garage of one Islamuddin Ansari, which was given for repair from one Satish Ram of Panki, thereafter the car was seized, which finds place at Para-192 of the case diary. 27. It appears that the Para-194 of the case diary is the confessional statement of the co-accused Sanjay Vishwakarma, 7 2025:JHHC:38739 who has admitted his guilt for committing robbery in the house of the Informant. Thereafter, on disclosure of said Sanjay Vishwakarma, the police had recovered some gold and silver jewellery and some notes from his house, which finds place at para-195 of the case diary. 28. It appears that the Para-197 is the confessional statement of the co-accused Rajkumar Paswan who had also admitted his guilt for committing dacoity in the house of the Informant and Para-198 is the seizure list showing the recovery of jewellery (illegible) from the house of Rajkumar Paswan. 29. It further appears that the Para-203 is the confessional statement of one co-accused Sunil Sao, who has admitted his guilt for committing robbery and on his disclosure the police had recovered certain articles (illegible), which is mentioned in Para-204 of the Case Diary. 30. It appears that the petitioner has taken specific defence for purchasing the gold from one shop M/s Shyamli Jewellers. However, this cannot be considered at this stage. 31. It appears from the T.I.P. chart that the Informant and his wife Dipa Gupta and Jitendra Kumar Gupta had identified the Nokia Mobile and Redmi Mobile and one keypad phone of i-tell company in the presence of Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer), Giridih. 32. It has been held in the case of Anup Kumar Lakhotia Vs. The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022 (1) JLJR page 127 and Para-25 of the said judgment is as follows: “Para-25:- The learned court below, while considering the petition for discharge considered the scope of Section 227 of Cr. P. C. and recorded that hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression ‘hearing the submissions of the accused’ cannot 8 2025:JHHC:38739 mean opportunity to file material is to be granted to the accused. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police.” 33. It has been held that in the case of State By The Inspector Of Police, Chennai vs. S. Selvi and Another reported in 2018 (13) SCC 455 at paragraph No.10 as follows:-