Anurag Tiwary v. The State of Jharkhand and another -------- CORAM : HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.1368 of 2022 Anurag Tiwary ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and another -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP For the Petitioner For the State …. …. Opposite Parties 04/18.08.2023 Heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. -------- 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 11.11.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.1773 of 2022, in connection with Sessions Trial No.540 of
Facts
2022, arising out of Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No.117 of 2021 whereby the learned court below had rejected the discharge application of the petitioner under section 227 of Cr.PC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR against all the accused including the petitioner are general and omnibus. Indeed the dispute between the parties was property dispute. The accused person had no intention for attempt to commit murder. The injuries were simple in nature and there is no repeated blow inflicted to any of the injured party by any of the accused. The learned court below did not appreciate the contentions made by the petitioner and rejected this application for discharge. 4.
Legal Reasoning
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High 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 suspicion. Marshalling 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) “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 Mehra 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.” 4 Cr. Rev. No.1368 of 2022 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Sanjay Choudhary & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 681: 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 there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. (underlined [Ed. : Herein italicised.] 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] .) 13. 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 explained in Debendra Nath Padhi case [(2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] by the larger Bench therein to which the very same question had been referred 14. 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 5 Cr. Rev. No.1368 of 2022 proceed against accused.” 15. From the allegations made in the FIR and also keeping in view the testimony of the injured witnesses and other eye witnesses which are corroborated with the medical evidence, it is found that all the accused persons on the issue of vacating the house had assaulted the mother and father of the informant. So far as the intention of the accused persons in regard to attempt to murder is concerned, the same is to be inferred from the conduct of the accused persons who had come at the place of occurrence. The weapons with which they were armed. The words used by the accused person while committing the offence and also the injuries inflicted by the accused persons. Herein all the accused persons had come with lathi, danda and rod and the injury which was inflicted to the injured person was on vital part. 16. Therefore, taking into consideration the statement of the witnesses and the other material collected by the IO during investigation, the court below while rejecting the application for discharge application of the petitioner has committed no illegality. As such, the impugned order passed by the court below needs no interference. 17. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed. RKM (Subhash Chand, J.)
Arguments
The learned APP vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that from the allegations made in the FIR and also the evidence collected by the IO, the court below has rightly rejected the application for discharge. 5. It is the settled law that while disposing of the discharge application, the court has to take into account the allegations made in the FIR and also the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation by the IO and also the other material evidence collected during investigation. 6. From the perusal of the FIR, it is found that the written information was given by informant with these allegations that on 10.03.2021 at 7 O'clock when her mother had returned to the house and father was also 2 Cr. Rev. No.1368 of 2022 there her cousin brother Ankit Tiwary @ Chiku and his younger brother Anurag Tiwari @ Subbham, their father Sunil Dutt Tiwary and Urmila Tiwari, wife of Sunil Dutt Tiwary alongwith one friend of the cousin brother Sagar Bharti, all came and intruded in the house of the informant. They assaulted to the mother of the informant who sustained head injury. Her mother was also dragged out of the house and was assaulted with the table, whereby she also sustained injury on the eye which swelled. The father of the informant was also severely beaten and the informant was also criminally intimidated and all the accused persons fled away. On this written information, the case crime no. 117 of 2021 was registered under sections 323, 341, 452, 307 r/w section 34 of IPC with the police station concerned against the five named accused. 7. The IO investigated the matter. He recorded the restatement of informant in para-16 of the case diary wherein the informant stated that on the date and time of occurrence all the accused persons were asking to vacate the house and on the very issue they abused them and began to assault. Ankit Tiwary @ Chiku with attempt to commit murder assaulted to the mother of the informant with the table which hit her head and the mother of the informant fell down on the ground in injured condition. Her father Ramesh Chandra Tripathi came to rescue he was also assaulted with lathi, danda and rod. They also asked to vacate the house as early as possible and intimidated to kill them. In the meantime, Sunil Dutt Tiwary and Urmila Tiwari also nabbed the hair of the mother of the informant and dragged her out of the house towards the path and assaulted her with kick and fist. 8. The statement of informant is also corroborated with the testimony of independent witness Fulchandra Nayak, Govind Nayak, Sangeet Kumar Tiwari. In para-17 of the case diary statement of injured Bindu Tripathi was recorded in which she stated that all the accused persons intruded in her house and assaulted with the table on her head whereby she sustained injury and her husband came to rescue, he was also assaulted with lathi, danda and rod. Her gotani Urmila Devi and Bhaisur Sunil Dutt Tiwary also dragged her holding by her hair and kicked her as well. The same kind of statement is also given injured Ramesh Chandra Tripathi in para-18 of the case diary. 3 Cr. Rev. No.1368 of 2022 9. So far as the injury report is concerned in the impugned order itself, the injury which the injured Bindu Tripathi sustained is lacerated wound 3cm x 1cm x 1.5cm on left forehead 5cm above eyebrow and the injury of another injured Ramesh Chandra Tripathi is ralcon eye-B/C eye-sub conjunetival haematoma. 10. It is also the settled law that while framing the charge the court has to see the allegations made in the FIR and also to take into account the statement of the witnesses under section 161 of Cr.PC and other documentary evidence collected by the IO during investigation. The Court has to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed with the trial on the basis of the material on record. No minute scrutiny of the evidence, marshalling of the evidence or appreciation of the evidence is permissible at this stage. No mini trial can be conducted by the court while framing the charge in regard to the veracity of the evidence collected by the IO during investigation. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Palwinder Singh vrs. Balwinder singh (2008) 14 SCC 504: