Dismissed

Imamuddin Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024CRLR/3599/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision challenging rejection of a Section 227 Cr.P.C. discharge application in a Sections 147, 323, 307 IPC stabbing case, where a lacerated wound was attributed to the revisionist. The court held disputed facts and defence cannot be considered at discharge stage and dismissed the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Imamuddin Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:142347

¶2

(Item No. 642 out of 725 of list of fresh cases)

¶3

Court No. - 84

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3599 of 2024

¶5

Revisionist :- Imamuddin Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Upendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶8

The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist, namely, Imamuddin Ahmad, against the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna, in Session Trial No. 1470 of 2023 (State Vs. Sarwar Alam Warsi), arising out of Case Crime No. 548 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kasya, District Kushinagar, whereby discharge application No. 7 ख, under Section 227 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist has been rejected.

¶9

Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the complainant-Jalaluddin Ali lodged a First Information Report on 25.06.2023 with regard to an incident which took place on 24.06.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 323, 307 I.P.C. against four accused persons, namely, Sarwar Alam, Gulam Waris, Imamuddin and Abid Hussain as well as three other accused persons alleging inter alia that when on 24.06.2023 at about 6:45 pm, he was going home via Pokhara, three unknown persons were following him, out of whom, one person had long hair who can be identified on seeing. They caught him. Then, Sarwar Alam, Gulam Waris, Imamuddin and Abid Hussain reached there by car. After getting down from the car, Sarwar, who is history-sheeter

¶10

attacked with knife and stabbed on complainant's chest with the intention to kill him, due to which he fell down. Again, he attacked on complainant's ear with a knife. When the complainant tried to get up and run away, Imamuddin hit him on his head with stick ( danda ), he felt dizzy and fell unconscious on the ground again. Then other people started kicking and punching him. Seeing that, passersby raised alarm. Hearing the alarm, the accused persons fled away.

¶11

Referring the F.I.R., it is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the role of causing knife injury has been assigned to co-accused Sarvar Alam. So far as present revisionist-Imamuddin Ahmad is concerned, the role of assault with danda has been attributed to him, whereas, there is no injury caused by the stick on the body of the injured. He further submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case because earlier he had lodged an F.I.R. on 17.02.2023 against 17 accused persons, namely, Noorulain Warsi, Inayatullah, Noorul Huda, Raunak, Raza, Nadeem, Ziya-ul-Haq, Shahid Jamal, Mahfooz, Wajid Ali, Hamid Ali alias Jokhan, Jalaluddin, Ihanul Haq, Arif, Umar Farooq alias Chhote Ansari, Navijan Warsi and Rizwan and some of them are witnesses of the incident dated 24.06.2023 in question. Therefore, no offence is made out so far as present revisionist Imamuddin Ahmad is concerned. Hence, impugned order dated 13.06.2024 is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.

¶12

On the other hand learned Additional Government Advocate for the State refuting the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist submits that as per injury report of injuredJalaluddin, he has received two visible injuries. One injury is in the nature of incised wound at right chest near right nipple, which has been assigned to coaccused Sarwar, whereas, second injury is in the nature of lacerated wound at right ear pinna and as per opinion of the doctor, the same has been caused by hard and blunt object, which has been assigned to the present revisionist. Hence, the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist with regard to

¶13

concerned injuries, is against the evidence on record. It is settled law that at the stage of discharge, the Court below is required to see whether on uncontroverted allegations as per the prosecution case and the material relied in support of same discloses the commission of any offence against the accused or not. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at the pre-trial stage. Considering the allegations and material evidence on record, prima facie offence alleged against the accused/revisionist is made out, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶14

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find substance in the submission of learned Additional Government Advocate that one lacerated wound was also found on the body of injured, which has been assigned to the present revisionist, hence, it cannot be said that no offence is made out so far as the revisionist is concerned. Apart from this, I also find that the revisionist is having criminal history of eight cases and opposite party No.2/complainant is having criminal history of seventeen cases, which reflect that both are men of criminal nature. The grounds taken in the revision reveal that many of them relate to disputed questions of facts. This court is of the view that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court at the appropriate stage. It is crystallized judicial view that at the stage of discharge, the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. At the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. It has also been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Palwinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 504, that charges can also be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. If there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, the Court can justifiably say that prima facie case exists against the accused. Marshaling and appreciation of

¶15

evidence is not in the domain of the trial court at the time of considering discharge application. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted makes a conviction reasonably possible. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage.

¶16

So far as submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that he has been falsely implicated is concerned, it is a matter of trial which can be determined after adducing the evidence by the parties concerned before the trial court. It is well settled that the defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of considering the discharge application or framing of charge. In the present case, the allegation against the revisionist is fully corroborated from the injury report of the complainant. Hence, at this stage, his defence cannot be taken into consideration.

¶17

Considering the facts, circumstances and materials available on record of this case, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order, therefore, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. The concerned court below while passing the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 has considered all the relevant materials on record and decided the discharge application of the revisionist in accordance with law in the light of well settled principle laid down by the Apex Court.

¶18

In view of the above, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶19

It is made clear that any observation made herein above, shall not affect the merits of the trial.

¶20

Copy of this order be sent to opposite party No. 2 (complainant) as well as to the trial court concerned within three days for information.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 Kashifa

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Imamuddin Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Imamuddin Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subodh @ Majira vs State of Up and 3 Others

Radheshyam Singh vs State of Up

Nirankar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Amrit Lal @ Chhota Baniya vs State of Up and Another

Sadik vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shanti Devi vs State of U.P.