High Court

(State Vs. Satish Kannaujiya and others) in arising out of Case Crime No. 65/2021, under Section 302 IPC, P.S.- Chauri Chaura, District- Gorakhpur, pending before Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2-Gorakhpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused submitted that after faulty investigation a false charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the accused-applicant in which no offence is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the offence and further the applicant was not present on the spot, who was living separately prior to the incident as such no offence is made out against the applicant. It was further submitted that the defence of the applicant was not looked into by the trial court while passing the impugned order as such the impugned order along with the proceedings of Session Trial No. 327/2023 so far as the applicant is concerned be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above prayer on the ground that sufficient prima facie evidence is available on record as such no case of quashing the proceedings of the above session trial exists.

5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Kiran Kumari was murdered in her matrimonial home by the applicant and another co-accused. The autopsy report of the deceased is available on record which shows that she has sustained antemortem injury of throttling and in the opinion of the Doctor, she died as a result of asphyxia. It is apparent that she has died an unnatural death since she was murdered after 13 years of marriage and there is no demand of dowry as such there is no prosecution under Sections 304-B and 498A IPC. Further after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and another co-accused under Section 302 IPC.

6. The main submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the defence of the applicant was not considered at the time of passing the impugned order by the trial court. Learned counsel submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the applicant was living separately from the deceased as such the applicant could not have committed the crime. It was further submitted that the applicant's wife was, in the similar circumstances, exonerated by the Investigating Officer and no charge sheet has been submitted against her.

7. The Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2003 SC 1512, State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359, SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another, AIR 2005 SC 3512, Bharat Parikh Vs. CBI, (2008) 10 SCC 109, Rukmani Narvekar Vs. Vijays Sataredkar, AIR 2009 SC 1013 has held that at the time of framing of charge the evidence produced by the accused is not to be considered. The application of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is only to be disposed on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution and on the basis of documents submitted therewith by the prosecution and nothing more. It has specifically been held that any document which the accused wants to rely upon cannot be read as evidence and if such evidence is to be considered, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge which would defeat the object of the Code.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam and others 2020 (2) SCC 217 (by Three Judges) has held that at the time of framing the charge only prima facie case is to be seen, whether case is beyond reasonable doubt is not be seen at this stage. The court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required, only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen. The court further held that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228 Cr.PC. It is further held that at the initial stage of framing of charge, the Court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the Court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not be to applied at that stage. It was further held that for framing charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. the Judge is not required to record the detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if the Judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame the charge against the accused for such offence.

9. The Apex Court in the case of Deepak Bhai Jagdish Chandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547 has held that grave suspicion is enough for framing of charge, which has not been properly explained. It was further held that probative value of evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. All that is required is that the Court must be satisfied with the material available, that a case is made out for the accused to stand trial.

10. In the light of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, it is apparent that the defence evidence put up by the applicant cannot be examined at this stage. The burden of proving the plea of ali bi lies on the applicant. In view of the above, the trial court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the discharge application of the applicant by the impugned order, as such, this application has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Sharad/-

(State Vs. Satish Kannaujiya and others) in arising out of Case Crime No. 65/2021, under Section 302 IPC, P.S.- Chauri Chaura, District- Gorakhpur, pending before Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2-Gorakhpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused submitted that after faulty investigation a false charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the accused-applicant in which no offence is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the offence and further the applicant was not present on the spot, who was living separately prior to the incident as such no offence is made out against the applicant. It was further submitted that the defence of the applicant was not looked into by the trial court while passing the impugned order as such the impugned order along with the proceedings of Session Trial No. 327/2023 so far as the applicant is concerned be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above prayer on the ground that sufficient prima facie evidence is available on record as such no case of quashing the proceedings of the above session trial exists.

5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Kiran Kumari was murdered in her matrimonial home by the applicant and another co-accused. The autopsy report of the deceased is available on record which shows that she has sustained antemortem injury of throttling and in the opinion of the Doctor, she died as a result of asphyxia. It is apparent that she has died an unnatural death since she was murdered after 13 years of marriage and there is no demand of dowry as such there is no prosecution under Sections 304-B and 498A IPC. Further after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and another co-accused under Section 302 IPC.

6. The main submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the defence of the applicant was not considered at the time of passing the impugned order by the trial court. Learned counsel submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the applicant was living separately from the deceased as such the applicant could not have committed the crime. It was further submitted that the applicant's wife was, in the similar circumstances, exonerated by the Investigating Officer and no charge sheet has been submitted against her.

7. The Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2003 SC 1512, State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359, SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another, AIR 2005 SC 3512, Bharat Parikh Vs. CBI, (2008) 10 SCC 109, Rukmani Narvekar Vs. Vijays Sataredkar, AIR 2009 SC 1013 has held that at the time of framing of charge the evidence produced by the accused is not to be considered. The application of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is only to be disposed on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution and on the basis of documents submitted therewith by the prosecution and nothing more. It has specifically been held that any document which the accused wants to rely upon cannot be read as evidence and if such evidence is to be considered, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge which would defeat the object of the Code.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam and others 2020 (2) SCC 217 (by Three Judges) has held that at the time of framing the charge only prima facie case is to be seen, whether case is beyond reasonable doubt is not be seen at this stage. The court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required, only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen. The court further held that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228 Cr.PC. It is further held that at the initial stage of framing of charge, the Court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the Court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not be to applied at that stage. It was further held that for framing charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. the Judge is not required to record the detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if the Judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame the charge against the accused for such offence.

9. The Apex Court in the case of Deepak Bhai Jagdish Chandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547 has held that grave suspicion is enough for framing of charge, which has not been properly explained. It was further held that probative value of evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. All that is required is that the Court must be satisfied with the material available, that a case is made out for the accused to stand trial.

10. In the light of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, it is apparent that the defence evidence put up by the applicant cannot be examined at this stage. The burden of proving the plea of ali bi lies on the applicant. In view of the above, the trial court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the discharge application of the applicant by the impugned order, as such, this application has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Sharad/-