The State of U.P v. Mohammad Abdul Hadi

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionists and the A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

2. By means of the present revision under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2024, the revisionists have challenged order dated 11.3.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Unnao in Sessions Trial No.1646 of 2024 arising out of case crime No.107 of 2024 (The State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Abdul Hadi @ Pappu and another) under Sections 302/436/201/34 IPC, police station Hassanganj, District Unnao wherein by the application for discharge has been rejected under Section 239 Cr.P.C. ordering for framing of charges against the revisionists.

3. Brief facts of the case as stated by the revisionists are that the complainant Omkar had given an application on 10.5.2024 at 8.51 a.m. at police station Hasanganj, District Unnao with regard to death of his brother Sushil on 10.5.2024 while he was sleeping in the thatch. The said complaint was entered into GD at No.20 on the same date and the site plan was prepared by the investigating officer. It is further stated that no person was named as accused in the said first information report which was got registered on 11.5.2024 with regard to death of Sushil being FIR No.107 /2024 which was registered on 11.5.2024 where- in it was alleged that brother of the complainant Sushil Kumar has been living in his thatch since last four years and in night of 9/10.4.2024 and some unnamed persons have murdered him by sharp edged weapon and the entire thatch has been set on fire due to which entire goods lying inside the thatch have got burnt.

4. During the investigation statements of the complainant was recorded wherein he reiterated the same contents as stated in the FIR and several villagers were also examined during the course of investigation. The statement of family members of the deceased was also recorded but the said statement does not shed any light with regard to the incident and accordingly would not be relevant for the present case. The only statement linking the revisionists to the said offence is the statement of one Manglu son of Kushhar who had given an application and the same was duly recorded in parcha No.16 stating that the accused had requested him much prior to the said incident to proceed with ploughing the field which was the disputed piece of property between the deceased and the accused. It was the the accused who had asked Manglu to plough the said filed. Further investigations were carried out and confessional statement of the accused was recorded and from their possession an iron rod was discovered from the pointing out of the revisionists which in all likelihood was the weapon which has been used in the said offence. It is in aforesaid and on the basis of the aforesaid material that the revisionists had been implicated as accused in the present case and have been summoned and the application for discharge was preferred by the revisionist before the sessions court which has been rejected by means of the impugned order.

5. A perusal of the impugned order also indicates that entire chain of events as occurring on record and arguments of the revisionist was duly taken into account and it was found that the only material at that stage was of the statement of Manglu and the recovery of weapon and also the confessional statement.

6. The point to be considered as to whether there is any infirmity in the order of the Sessions Judge in rejecting the application for discharge. It has been vehemently submitted that merely on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused the trial cannot proceed against the revisionist. In support of his submissions he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Hafeez vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 367 where in the said case the accused were proceeded only on the basis of confessional statement and the Court has observed that "It is impossible to believe that all spoke simultaneously. This way of recording evidence is most unsatisfactory and we record our disapproval of the same."

7. We have perused the record and the confessional statement in this regard where on the pointing out of the weapon when the revisionists were confronted by the investigating officer on questioning they informed him that there was a dispute with regard to the said land with the deceased and civil litigation was also pending and some orders were also passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. They have also stated that in all likelihood the deceased would take away the said land from the possession of the revisionists and consequently with a plan to eliminate him in the night of 9/10.5.2024 assaulted him while he was in the sleep and under the impression that he had died they put kerosene oil and set it ablaze. It was stated that the thatch was put in fire so as to ensure that even the original litigation records as well as revenue records would be burnt and the iron rod was concealed in an orchard close to a grave.

8. It was submitted that in the present case the revisionists are being implicated on the basis of circumstantial evidence while entire chain of events has to be established and in the State is proceeding against the revisionists only on the ground of confessional statement of recovery of weapon.

9. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the revision. He submits that cogent and reliable evidence have been collected during the investigation implicating the revisionist to the said incident and accordingly once the said evidence is on record, the revisionists are not entitled to be discharged at this stage without facing the trial.

10. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.

11. The facts in the present case are not disputed in as much as the first information report was lodged on 11.5.2024 with regard to death of brother of the complainant, Sushil, who was living in the thatch which was built in the orchard. In the fist information report it was found that body of the deceased had anti mortem injury marks. During investigation an application was made by one Manggu which was taken on record and has been made part of the case diary according to which the said Mangu had been asked by the revisionist to plough on the disputed piece of land on which possession was maintained by the deceased. It is on the basis of the said fact coming into the knowledge of the investigating officer that further investigation was made and when the accused were confronted with the with the said matterial they confessed the said crime and also on their pointing gout the weapon used in the said incident was also recovered.

12. The only ground urged was that the confessional statement made before the police authorities cannot be relied upon for proceedings against the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Undoubtedly during the trial any statement made before the police officer would not be admissible but apart from the above, there are other material in the form of recovery of weapon used in the said crime, the confessional statement made before the police cannot be an evidence but it may be of corroborative value during the trial. Apart from the above, it is on pointing out of the accused that the weapon used in the said murder was also recovered. From the above, at the stage of framing of charges, it cannot be said that there is no material for proceeding against the accused in the present case.

13. This aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the trial court and it is only during the trial the admissibility of the evidence which is used by the prosecution to bring home the charges will be considered. At the stage of discharge the aspect of admissibility would not be of relevance but only the existence of material sufficient to proceed against the accused would be of relevance.

14. On the touchstone of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the trial court rejecting the application for discharge. Accordingly the revision, being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 11.4.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionists and the A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

2. By means of the present revision under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2024, the revisionists have challenged order dated 11.3.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Unnao in Sessions Trial No.1646 of 2024 arising out of case crime No.107 of 2024 (The State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Abdul Hadi @ Pappu and another) under Sections 302/436/201/34 IPC, police station Hassanganj, District Unnao wherein by the application for discharge has been rejected under Section 239 Cr.P.C. ordering for framing of charges against the revisionists.

3. Brief facts of the case as stated by the revisionists are that the complainant Omkar had given an application on 10.5.2024 at 8.51 a.m. at police station Hasanganj, District Unnao with regard to death of his brother Sushil on 10.5.2024 while he was sleeping in the thatch. The said complaint was entered into GD at No.20 on the same date and the site plan was prepared by the investigating officer. It is further stated that no person was named as accused in the said first information report which was got registered on 11.5.2024 with regard to death of Sushil being FIR No.107 /2024 which was registered on 11.5.2024 where- in it was alleged that brother of the complainant Sushil Kumar has been living in his thatch since last four years and in night of 9/10.4.2024 and some unnamed persons have murdered him by sharp edged weapon and the entire thatch has been set on fire due to which entire goods lying inside the thatch have got burnt.

4. During the investigation statements of the complainant was recorded wherein he reiterated the same contents as stated in the FIR and several villagers were also examined during the course of investigation. The statement of family members of the deceased was also recorded but the said statement does not shed any light with regard to the incident and accordingly would not be relevant for the present case. The only statement linking the revisionists to the said offence is the statement of one Manglu son of Kushhar who had given an application and the same was duly recorded in parcha No.16 stating that the accused had requested him much prior to the said incident to proceed with ploughing the field which was the disputed piece of property between the deceased and the accused. It was the the accused who had asked Manglu to plough the said filed. Further investigations were carried out and confessional statement of the accused was recorded and from their possession an iron rod was discovered from the pointing out of the revisionists which in all likelihood was the weapon which has been used in the said offence. It is in aforesaid and on the basis of the aforesaid material that the revisionists had been implicated as accused in the present case and have been summoned and the application for discharge was preferred by the revisionist before the sessions court which has been rejected by means of the impugned order.

5. A perusal of the impugned order also indicates that entire chain of events as occurring on record and arguments of the revisionist was duly taken into account and it was found that the only material at that stage was of the statement of Manglu and the recovery of weapon and also the confessional statement.

6. The point to be considered as to whether there is any infirmity in the order of the Sessions Judge in rejecting the application for discharge. It has been vehemently submitted that merely on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused the trial cannot proceed against the revisionist. In support of his submissions he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Hafeez vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 367 where in the said case the accused were proceeded only on the basis of confessional statement and the Court has observed that "It is impossible to believe that all spoke simultaneously. This way of recording evidence is most unsatisfactory and we record our disapproval of the same."

7. We have perused the record and the confessional statement in this regard where on the pointing out of the weapon when the revisionists were confronted by the investigating officer on questioning they informed him that there was a dispute with regard to the said land with the deceased and civil litigation was also pending and some orders were also passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. They have also stated that in all likelihood the deceased would take away the said land from the possession of the revisionists and consequently with a plan to eliminate him in the night of 9/10.5.2024 assaulted him while he was in the sleep and under the impression that he had died they put kerosene oil and set it ablaze. It was stated that the thatch was put in fire so as to ensure that even the original litigation records as well as revenue records would be burnt and the iron rod was concealed in an orchard close to a grave.

8. It was submitted that in the present case the revisionists are being implicated on the basis of circumstantial evidence while entire chain of events has to be established and in the State is proceeding against the revisionists only on the ground of confessional statement of recovery of weapon.

9. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the revision. He submits that cogent and reliable evidence have been collected during the investigation implicating the revisionist to the said incident and accordingly once the said evidence is on record, the revisionists are not entitled to be discharged at this stage without facing the trial.

10. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.

11. The facts in the present case are not disputed in as much as the first information report was lodged on 11.5.2024 with regard to death of brother of the complainant, Sushil, who was living in the thatch which was built in the orchard. In the fist information report it was found that body of the deceased had anti mortem injury marks. During investigation an application was made by one Manggu which was taken on record and has been made part of the case diary according to which the said Mangu had been asked by the revisionist to plough on the disputed piece of land on which possession was maintained by the deceased. It is on the basis of the said fact coming into the knowledge of the investigating officer that further investigation was made and when the accused were confronted with the with the said matterial they confessed the said crime and also on their pointing gout the weapon used in the said incident was also recovered.

12. The only ground urged was that the confessional statement made before the police authorities cannot be relied upon for proceedings against the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Undoubtedly during the trial any statement made before the police officer would not be admissible but apart from the above, there are other material in the form of recovery of weapon used in the said crime, the confessional statement made before the police cannot be an evidence but it may be of corroborative value during the trial. Apart from the above, it is on pointing out of the accused that the weapon used in the said murder was also recovered. From the above, at the stage of framing of charges, it cannot be said that there is no material for proceeding against the accused in the present case.

13. This aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the trial court and it is only during the trial the admissibility of the evidence which is used by the prosecution to bring home the charges will be considered. At the stage of discharge the aspect of admissibility would not be of relevance but only the existence of material sufficient to proceed against the accused would be of relevance.

14. On the touchstone of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the trial court rejecting the application for discharge. Accordingly the revision, being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 11.4.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench