Dismissed

Ravindra Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2020CRLR/37/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was filed against an order dismissing the discharge application of the accused in a murder case. The High Court examined whether the trial court made any legal error in framing charges. The court referred to precedents regarding the standard for framing charges versus conviction and held that the impugned order was not erroneous.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed as it lacks merit; no interference with the order dismissing the discharge application.

Ravindra Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 37 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Ravindra Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Satyendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This criminal revision has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 836 of 2018, State of U.P. vs. Ravindra Kashyap and others, (Case Crime No. 1481 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad whereby trial court dismissed the discharge application no. 6-B made by accused revisionist.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. He committed no offence. There is no evidence against the revisionist to frame charge. He showed some statements of witnesses and documents in support of his contention.

¶8

On the other hand learned AGA refuted the prayer and submitted that accused is named in F.I.R. Investigating Officer found sufficient evidence during investigating and submitted charge sheet against him. There is sufficient ground to frame charge.

¶9

Brief facts of case which need to be noted for disposal of case are :-

¶10

(5-a) As per F.I.R., on 18.7.2018, victim Anuj Tyagi son of informant was shot dead in Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad by accused persons. F.I.R. was lodged by informant in police station concerned. Investigating Officer investigated the matter and found sufficient evidence against accused persons and submitted charge sheet against them.

¶11

(5-b) An application No. 6-B was filed by revisionist for discharge from charges levelled against him stating that revisionist has been falsely implicated. Initially F.I.R. was lodged under Section 307 I.P.C. later on, on the death of victim

¶12

Anuj Tyagi, matter was converted under Section 302 I.P.C. Informant was not an eye witness. There is sufficient contradiction between the statement of witnesses. It has also been mentioned in application that informant of the case concocted a forged story. On the date of incident he was not on spot. Application No. 6-B made by accused-revisionist was dismissed by trial court by the impugned order.

¶13

(5-c) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, revisionist preferred this criminal revision.

¶14

In State of Tamilnadu by Ins. of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption vs. N. Suresh Rajan, 2014 (11) SCC 709 , the Court said that :-

¶15

" what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the Court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the Court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."

¶16

It is a case of murder. Accused revisionist is named in F.I.R. Witness Sachin has stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before police that victim Anuj Tyagi told him that he was shot dead by Ravindra and Vinay. Deceased was taken to hospital by this witness.

¶17

In Kunwar Pal and another vs. State of U.P., 2011 (2) JIC 499 (Allahabad) , Court said that there is sufficient material available on record to proceed further in the matter, a charge can be framed. Meticulous consideration of materials is uncalled for at this stage.

¶18

Considering overall circumstances of the case, evidence collected by I.O. during investigation, rival submission of both parties, I do not see any good ground, legal or otherwise error in the impugned order warranting interference in this criminal revision.

¶19

Revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶20

Order Date :- 9.1.2020 Manoj

Ravindra Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lallan Babu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sadakat Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shiv Bahadur Yadav Alias Lalu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Tomar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Mehta Vs Aryaman Chopra