Dismissed

Ram Sunder v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023CRLR/2960/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. The Court upheld the trial court's rejection of the accused's discharge application, holding that the trial court was not required to act as a mini-trial or go deep into the probative value of evidence at the discretion stage. The Court found no infirmity or illegality in the discharge rejection.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed by the revisionist was dismissed to the court below.

Ram Sunder Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172068

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2960 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Ram Sunder Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

As per office report dated 17.08.2023, notice issued to opposite party no.2 was served personally. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This criminal revision has been preferred by revisionist against the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Varanasi in Session Trial No.- 1065 of 2021 by which discharge application filed by revisionist was rejected.

¶9

The brief facts of the case is that the first information report has been lodged by opposite party no.2 through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the revisionist and one co-accused Anil and the case was registered as Case Crime No.- 0477 of 2017 under Section 302, 354B, 376, 504 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer had submitted final report on 21.02.2018. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi vide order dated 12.12.2018 rejected the final report dated 21.02.2018 and summoned the accused persons namely Anil and Ram Sunder (revisionist). During trial the revisionist had moved discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the revisionist has no concern with the victim and he has been falsely implicated in this case and Investigating Officer had submitted against final report, after found that there is no evidence against the revisionist. The discharge application was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.-2, Varanasi vide order dated 15.02.2023, which is impugned in the present criminal revision.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the first information report was lodged on altogether incorrect facts and the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case. The Investigating Officer after due investigation had not found any materials against the revisionist, as such has submitted final report but the learned Magistrate has rejected the final report and summoned the revisionist to face trial. The discharge application filed by revisionist was also rejected by learned trial court in a routine manner.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the

¶12

prayer. It is submitted by learned A.G.A. that F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no.2 against revisionist and one other co-accused and statement of victim was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in which she has supported the prosecution case and specifically stated that the rape was committed by revisionist. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence and materials which are available on record, had rejected the final report and summoned the revisionist.

¶13

It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that learned court below after considering the entire evidence and materials which were collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, had rightly passed the order dated 15.02.2023 rejecting the discharge application and there is no illegality in any manner. No ground for interference is made out and the criminal revision filed on behalf of revisionist-accused is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The provision 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:-

¶15

"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."

¶16

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. Paragraph 29 of the judgment of Suresh Rajan(supra) is quoted below:-

¶17

"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 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

¶18

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."

¶19

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of M.P. vs. Mohanlal Soni reported in (2000) 6 SCC 33 8 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, 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 Magistrate is required at the time of framing of charges. Relevant paragraph 7 is quoted herein below:-

¶20

"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."

¶21

The law has been settled 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 reach at the conclusion for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out for proceeding further, then the charge is to be framed.

¶22

Learned trial court after considering the evidence and materials which were collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation had recorded his prima-facie satisfaction regarding involvement of revisionist in the present case and has rightly rejected the discharge application filed on behalf of revisionist/accused person. The order passed by court below is based on material and there is no infirmity or illegality in any manner. No ground for interference is made out. The revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

The revision is dismissed , accordingly.

¶24

Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

¶25

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 Virendra

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Sunder v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sunder 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

Kshama Srivastava Vs Abhishek Srivastava

Ankur Chilwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepu @ Deep Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pooja Sharma and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Kumari Priti Vs State of U.P. and Another