Dismissed

Umashankar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Nov 2017CRR/692/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition challenging the framing of charges for rape, the High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the Special Judge correctly framed charges based on prima facie evidence from April 2014. The Court ruled that subsequent marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix in July 2016 could not invalidate the validly framed charges.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the interim stay application was rejected; the trial court record to be sent back immediately.

Umashankar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma

¶4

CRR No. 692 of 2017

¶5

Umashankar S/o Krishna Kumar Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mopka, Police Station Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Revisioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Smt. Surekha W/o Umashankar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Indira Colony, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

-------------------------------	----------	--------------------------------------------------------------------
For revisioner	:	Mr. A.P. Sharma, Advocate.
For respondent/State	:	Mr. Luv Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
For respondent No.2.	:	Mr. Rishikant Mahobia

¶12

2-11-2017

¶13

Revision is heard finally.

¶14

This revision is preferred against the order dated 26-4-2017 passed by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Atrocities) Baloda Bazar, wherein Special Court framed charges under Sections 376 and 506 Part II of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short, “the Act, 1989”).

¶15

The main ground raised in this revision is that since the prosecutrix who is non-revisioner No.2 in the present revision has married with the revisioner on 18-7-2016, the order of framing of the charge dated 264-2017 be set aside.

¶16

Record of the court of Special Judge reveals that the revisioner is charged for commission of offence under Section 3 (2)(v) of the Act,

¶17

¶18

1989 for committing rape on the prosecutrix after 1-12-2013 and from the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., date of offence is some time in the month of April, 2014. As there is, prima facie, evidence regarding commission of offence in the year 2014 and for that the charge has been framed by the Special Judge, the same cannot be interfered with on the ground that after two years of commission of offence i.e.,18-7-2016 the revisioner and the prosecutrix got married.

¶19

In the matter of Some Chakravarty vs. State through CBI, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 403, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:

¶20

“The settled legal position is that if on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.”

¶21

As all the issues between the parties cannot be gone into by the trial Court while framing the charge, there is no flaw in framing charge against the revisioner and the same cannot be interfered with by this Court invoking jurisdiction of the revision.

¶22

¶23

Accordingly, the revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No. 1 of 2017, application for grant of interim stay to the proceeding of the trial Court stands rejected.

¶24

Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately to the trial Court.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Ram Prasanna Sharma) Judge

¶27

Raju

Umashankar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umashankar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Babulal @ Babuji Vs State

Ram Lal @ Rama Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Devi Prasad Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Akbar Ali Vs Smt. Sana Parveen

Totaram and Ors. Vs the State of M.P. Now C.G.

Surendra Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of M.P.