Dismissed

Gautam Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2023CRLR/2861/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Allahabad considered challenges by Gautam Kumar and another against the rejection of their discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Upholding the trial court's finding of prima facie evidence for murder charges and failing to find illegality, the High Court dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed by the revisionists was dismissed. Any interim order stands discharged.

Gautam Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:213987

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2861 of 2023 Revisionist :- Gautam Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nipun Singh,Vivek Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the order dated 31.3.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No.193 of 2017 (State Vs. Gautam and another), by which the discharge application filed by revisionists under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

¶7

The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 had lodged a F.I.R. against six accused persons with the allegation that they murdered his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) namely Sudama. The F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No.0664 of 2016, under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 34 I.P.C. in P.S. Khetasarai, District Jaunpur. The revisionists were not named in the F.I.R. During investigation the mobile of deceased was recovered from the possession of Kuldeep son of revisionists. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of witnesses and found that the revisionists were also involved in committing the murder of Sudama. The knife was also recovered from the possession of revisionist no.1 namely Gautam Kumar and a case was also registered against him as Case Crime No.704 of 2016, under Section 4/25 of Arms Act. The Investigating Officer has also recorded the statements of revisionists and their son Kuldeep in which they have confessed their guilt and admitted that they have committed murder at the instance of husband of Sudama namely Lal Ji after receiving Rs.1 Lack. The Investigating Officer after completing investigation has found sufficient evidence and material against the revisionists and has submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionists. The revisionists had moved application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that they may be discharged from the offence and the discharge application was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 31.3.2023.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the revisionists are not named in the F.I.R. and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that as per evidence collected by the Investigating Officer the revisionists have committed the murder of Sudama on the instance of her husband namely Lal Ji after receiving Rs.1 Lack but the Investigating Officer has submitted the final report against Lal Ji. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer in connivance with named accused persons, have submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionists and has exonerated the actual accused persons, who were named in

¶9

the F.I.R. Lastly, it is submitted that learned trial court in a very casual manner without considering the entire material and evidence which are available on record has rejected the discharge application of the revisionists.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has submitted that learned trial court after considering the entire evidence and materials which are available on record and after recording its prima-facie satisfaction has rightly rejected the discharge application.

¶11

Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. For ready reference Section 245 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-

¶12

"227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

¶13

The approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the power of discharge is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2008 2 SCC 561 . The relevant paragraph No.11 is quoted herein below:-

¶14

"11. 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, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."

¶15

The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan and others reported in 2014 (11) SCC 709 , has held that at the time of deciding the application for discharge, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and consider the entire evidence and material which are available on record. The relevant paragraph 29 is quoted below:-

¶16

"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post-office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the

¶17

existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, 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."

¶18

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mohanlal Soni reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held that at the time of framing of charges the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground against the accused or not and the Court is not required to consider the evidence in detail and appreciate evidence to conclude that there are sufficient materials for conviction of the accused. Only prima facie satisfaction of learned trial court is required at the time of framing of charges. Relevant paragraph 7 is quoted herein below:-

¶19

"7. The crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused."

¶20

It is well settled law by Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of cases that at the time of framing of charges the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and materials, which are available on record to reach at the conclusion for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, then the charges are to be framed.

¶21

The discharge application filed by the revisionists was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court after prima facie satisfaction that there is sufficient evidence and material against the accused revisionists for framing charge under Sections 302, 394, 120B, 411, 34 IPC.

¶22

Learned counsel for revisionists has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the discharge application. No ground for interference is made out. The revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

The criminal revision is dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

¶24

Order Date :- 6.11.2023 PP/Kpy

¶25

Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gautam Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Amit Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Dhwaj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Saini Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another