State of U.P. and Another v. Counsel for Revisionist(s)

2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the Revisionist and Sri Murtaza Ali, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, District Mau in Session Case No. 1307 of 2023(State Vs. Dinesh Rai), arising out of Case Crime No. 207 of 2023, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Mohammadabad, Distrtict-Mau, whereby discharge application of the Revisionist has been rejected.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that informant/opposite party No. 2 Subhash has lodged an F.I.R. under Section 304 I.P.C. alleging therein that on 10.06.2023 in the morning at 6.00 AM, his mother Radhika Devi came to the contact of naked wire carrying electric current. That naked wire was being used by the Revisionist for fencing his agricultural land. Due to coming into the contact of that wire, his mother got electrocuted which resulted in her death. After the investigation completed, the Investigating Officer submitted the chragesheet, whereupon the trial was being conducted before the learned Trial Court.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the Revisionist that the learned Trial Court has not considered the statement of witnesses in the Panchayatnama and statement of informant as well as the doctor and passed the impugned order in a cursory manner. The learned Trial Court has overlooked the fact that there was no eye witness of the incident and the total case is based upon surmises. The learned Trial Court rejected the discharge application by passing wrongful order. There was nothing in the case 2 CRLR No. 2181 of 2024 diary about the source of electricity, which is said to be flowing in the wired fence of the land of the Revisionist.

6. It is further submitted that there is no medical evidence regarding the death of the mother of the informant to have caused by electrocution. The viscera was preserved, but the report is not submitted till yet. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial court is against the fact and law and the learned Trial Court has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, but exceeded in rejecting the discharge application.

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the Revisionist and submitted that thee witnesses have supported the prosecution in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the medical evidence also speaks that there were injuries on the body of the deceased, which indicates that the death perhaps was caused by the electrocution.

8. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having walked through the material available on record, it appears that present Revision is based on a sole argument that there was no medical report, from which it can be inferred that the death has been caused by the electrocution.

9. In this regard, the perusal of postmortem report is important, wherein the ante-mortem injury has been recorded, which is as under:- "Peeling on skin seen over the face, neck, whole chest & abdomen including both the upper limbs and lower limbs with multiple blisters present over the medial aspects of both the thighs."

10. This ante-mortem injury indicates that there is possibility of burning which may be cause by the electrocution. On the panchnama of the body of the deceased, the injuries are mentioned as under:- "मृितका के शव पर आई चोटों का िनरीक्षण म0 का0 अंिकता िसह द्वारा िकया गया तो म0 का 0 अंिकता िसह द्वारा बताए अनुसार शव के बाएँ छाती जला हुआ, बायाँ कं धा जला हुआ, दािहने घुटने पर जलने व चोट के िनशान, तथा दािहने पैर में घुटने के पास चोट व जलने के िनशान पाए गए हैं।" 3 CRLR No. 2181 of 2024

11. In the opinion of the Panch, the death was found to be caused by electrocution when the deceased came into the contact of wired fence of the accused Dinesh Rai. There is also the statement of the witnesses that the accused was used to keep flowing electricity in the wired fence of his land and despite objection of several villagers, he did not stop to flow current into the naked wires.

12. Therefore, from the perusal of evidences available on record, there are cogent and palpable evidences available on record to make out a case against the accused more than the prima facie case.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently outlined the principles and grounds for rejecting a discharge application, primarily revolving around the concept of 'prima-facie' or 'grave suspicion'. The most crucial ground for rejection is the existence of a prima-facie case against the accused. The Court is not required to find material for conviction, but merely enough to suspect involvement of accused.

14. In the case of Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, the Apex Court has held that at the stage of framing a charge, the Judge is not a mere Post Office, but he is also not required to meticulously weigh the evidence. If the Judge is satisfied that the materials disclose a grave suspicion against the accused, he must proceed with the trial and the discharge application must be rejected. The evidence presented must be such that, if unrebutted, it could lead to conviction.

15. In the case of State of Maharashtra and others versus Som Nath Thapa and others, (1996) 4 SCC 659, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that if the material placed before the Court gives rise to strong suspicion against the accused, then it is sufficient to proceed with the framing of charge, thus necessitating the rejection of the discharge plea. The test is whether the material suggest that the accused probably committed the offences.

16. In a case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Etc. versus Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr., 1989 SCC (1) 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against embarking on a 'mini-trial' to determine the truthfulness of the evidence at the stage of discharge. If the record discloses "grounds for presuming" that the accused has committed the offence, the application must be rejected, and the case must proceed to 4 CRLR No. 2181 of 2024 trial.

17. In view of the above case laws, the perusal of the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 shows that the learned Trial Court has considered all the facts mentioned in the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the materials and evidences available on record and passed the impugned order.

18. By considering the facts and evidence, the learned Trial Court has found that there are sufficient evidence available on record regarding the alleged charge against the accused there is no lawful ground to discharge the accused persons. The impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is reasoned order on the facts and evidence assigning the reasons for declining to allow the discharge application and also by referring the requisite case law, therefore, I find no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order and the Revisionist is not able to make out a fit case, so as to justify interference by this Court by granting any relief under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No interference is warranted.

19. Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. December 2, 2025 ADY (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the Revisionist and Sri Murtaza Ali, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, District Mau in Session Case No. 1307 of 2023(State Vs. Dinesh Rai), arising out of Case Crime No. 207 of 2023, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Mohammadabad, Distrtict-Mau, whereby discharge application of the Revisionist has been rejected.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that informant/opposite party No. 2 Subhash has lodged an F.I.R. under Section 304 I.P.C. alleging therein that on 10.06.2023 in the morning at 6.00 AM, his mother Radhika Devi came to the contact of naked wire carrying electric current. That naked wire was being used by the Revisionist for fencing his agricultural land. Due to coming into the contact of that wire, his mother got electrocuted which resulted in her death. After the investigation completed, the Investigating Officer submitted the chragesheet, whereupon the trial was being conducted before the learned Trial Court.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the Revisionist that the learned Trial Court has not considered the statement of witnesses in the Panchayatnama and statement of informant as well as the doctor and passed the impugned order in a cursory manner. The learned Trial Court has overlooked the fact that there was no eye witness of the incident and the total case is based upon surmises. The learned Trial Court rejected the discharge application by passing wrongful order. There was nothing in the case 2 CRLR No. 2181 of 2024 diary about the source of electricity, which is said to be flowing in the wired fence of the land of the Revisionist.

6. It is further submitted that there is no medical evidence regarding the death of the mother of the informant to have caused by electrocution. The viscera was preserved, but the report is not submitted till yet. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial court is against the fact and law and the learned Trial Court has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, but exceeded in rejecting the discharge application.

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the Revisionist and submitted that thee witnesses have supported the prosecution in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the medical evidence also speaks that there were injuries on the body of the deceased, which indicates that the death perhaps was caused by the electrocution.

8. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having walked through the material available on record, it appears that present Revision is based on a sole argument that there was no medical report, from which it can be inferred that the death has been caused by the electrocution.

9. In this regard, the perusal of postmortem report is important, wherein the ante-mortem injury has been recorded, which is as under:- "Peeling on skin seen over the face, neck, whole chest & abdomen including both the upper limbs and lower limbs with multiple blisters present over the medial aspects of both the thighs."

10. This ante-mortem injury indicates that there is possibility of burning which may be cause by the electrocution. On the panchnama of the body of the deceased, the injuries are mentioned as under:- "मृितका के शव पर आई चोटों का िनरीक्षण म0 का0 अंिकता िसह द्वारा िकया गया तो म0 का 0 अंिकता िसह द्वारा बताए अनुसार शव के बाएँ छाती जला हुआ, बायाँ कं धा जला हुआ, दािहने घुटने पर जलने व चोट के िनशान, तथा दािहने पैर में घुटने के पास चोट व जलने के िनशान पाए गए हैं।" 3 CRLR No. 2181 of 2024

11. In the opinion of the Panch, the death was found to be caused by electrocution when the deceased came into the contact of wired fence of the accused Dinesh Rai. There is also the statement of the witnesses that the accused was used to keep flowing electricity in the wired fence of his land and despite objection of several villagers, he did not stop to flow current into the naked wires.

12. Therefore, from the perusal of evidences available on record, there are cogent and palpable evidences available on record to make out a case against the accused more than the prima facie case.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently outlined the principles and grounds for rejecting a discharge application, primarily revolving around the concept of 'prima-facie' or 'grave suspicion'. The most crucial ground for rejection is the existence of a prima-facie case against the accused. The Court is not required to find material for conviction, but merely enough to suspect involvement of accused.

14. In the case of Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, the Apex Court has held that at the stage of framing a charge, the Judge is not a mere Post Office, but he is also not required to meticulously weigh the evidence. If the Judge is satisfied that the materials disclose a grave suspicion against the accused, he must proceed with the trial and the discharge application must be rejected. The evidence presented must be such that, if unrebutted, it could lead to conviction.

15. In the case of State of Maharashtra and others versus Som Nath Thapa and others, (1996) 4 SCC 659, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that if the material placed before the Court gives rise to strong suspicion against the accused, then it is sufficient to proceed with the framing of charge, thus necessitating the rejection of the discharge plea. The test is whether the material suggest that the accused probably committed the offences.

16. In a case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Etc. versus Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr., 1989 SCC (1) 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against embarking on a 'mini-trial' to determine the truthfulness of the evidence at the stage of discharge. If the record discloses "grounds for presuming" that the accused has committed the offence, the application must be rejected, and the case must proceed to 4 CRLR No. 2181 of 2024 trial.

17. In view of the above case laws, the perusal of the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 shows that the learned Trial Court has considered all the facts mentioned in the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the materials and evidences available on record and passed the impugned order.

18. By considering the facts and evidence, the learned Trial Court has found that there are sufficient evidence available on record regarding the alleged charge against the accused there is no lawful ground to discharge the accused persons. The impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is reasoned order on the facts and evidence assigning the reasons for declining to allow the discharge application and also by referring the requisite case law, therefore, I find no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order and the Revisionist is not able to make out a fit case, so as to justify interference by this Court by granting any relief under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No interference is warranted.

19. Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. December 2, 2025 ADY (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)