State of U.P v. Veena Jaiswal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104828 Order reserved on 11.05.2023. Order delivered on 23.05.2023. Court No. - 65 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11023 of 2023 Applicant :- Deependra Jaiswal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aushim Luthra,Atharva Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Singh,Rajiv Lochan Shukla Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 1343 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Veena Jaiswal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354-B, 352, 307, 324, 34, 509 IPC, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby an application filed by the applicants under Section 227 CrPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are absolutely false, cooked up and concocted just with an intention to give colour to the whole incident. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that to frame the charges in appropriate penal sections, it is necessary that the ingredients of those penal sections be present, however in the instant case, taking into consideration the entire allegations made in the FIR and the statement of the witnesses on its face value, will not attract any penal sections. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that the injuries shown to be suffered by the victim Veena are absolutely manipulated and the injury report is a forged and fictitious document not worth reliance and liable to be discarded. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that prosecution story, as mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement of the witnesses, is absurd and inherently improbable. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that on account of property dispute, with an evil intention to grab the property, the entire prosecution story has been cooked up and concocted, which is not worth credence, yet the trial court, without application of judicial mind and without considering the entire evidence and material on record, in a most cursory and routine manner, has passed the impugned order and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has supported the impugned order refusing to discharge the accused-applicants and has submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, prima facie offence, complained of, is clearly made out against the applicants. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has next drawn the attention of the Court to the medical examination report of the victim, which shows that victim suffered following injuries :- (i). Incised Wound 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep left side of parietal area of skull. 13 cm area from left ear. (ii). Multiple Abrasion 8 x 1.5 cm in left side of neck 2.0 cm right Clavicle bone. (iii). Multiple Abrasion 5 x 2.5 cm left sub mandible area 4 cm below from over the chin. (iv). Complain of Nausea and vomiting 2-3 episode of vomiting. 10. The Doctor has noted that the injuries to be fresh and has opined that the injury no.1 has been caused by sharp edged object, whereas injury nos. 2 and 3 were caused by hard and blunt object. It is evident that the victim remain admitted in the hospital for about a day and suffered a head injury. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, prima facie offence, complained of, is clearly disclosed against the applicants. 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further argued that at the stage of discharge under Section 227 CrPC, the trial court is required to discharge the accused, if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing of the accused and prosecution in this behalf, it is considered that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he can be discharged. 13. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further submitted that at the stage of discharge, the court is not required to make a roving enquiry and if, prima facie, offence is disclosed against the applicants and there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the court shall not discharge the accused. 14. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has relied upon the decision reported in State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : 1197 CriLJ 1060, considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, it was held that at the stage of framing of charge it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that stage, the court is not to see whether, there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 15. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Delhi Vs. Gyan Devi and Others (2008) 8 SCC 239 has held as under : "7. .....The legal position is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the Trial Court is not to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking for the quashing of charge framed against them the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and no rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the Trial Court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases." 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368 has held that in excising jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC, the court should not make roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Supt. And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others (1979) 4 SCC 274, has held that at the stage of under Section 227 CrPC, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce, are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof, and judgment, which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 227 CrPC. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged; may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence. 18. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak reported in AIR 2019 SC 5604 has held that : "It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction." "Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that the judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The ground in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record. If generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime." 19. Thus from the above mentioned cases, it is evident that the duty of the trial court at the stage of Section 227 CrPC is to assess the sufficiency of the material for the purposes of framing of the charge and sufficient ground exists for proceeding against the accused. 20. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is evident that from the allegations made in the FIR as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, prima facie, offence, complained of, is made out against the applicants. The veracity of such statement can be appreciated and analyzed only by the trial court at the stage of trial. 21. Keeping in view of nature of the injuries suffered by the victim, it cannot be said, at this stage, that the said injuries are manipulated and the injury report cannot be said to be forged and fictitious. The court at this stage is not required to hold a mini trial and is not required to return a finding in respect of the said facts. 22. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that impugned order passed by the trial court is just, proper and legal and do not suffer from any error of law, illegality or infirmity. 23. The present application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 23.5.2023 Nadim Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad