Dismissed

Rajekul Ali v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC6 Mar 2019Crl.Pet./69/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition challenging orders framing charges under Section 302 IPC for murder. The Single Judge upheld the Sessions Judge's decision to alter charges, noting that framing charges requires only prima facie satisfaction and does not demand proof of guilt by evidence. The plea of prejudice to witnesses was rejected.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajekul Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010007662019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 69/2019

¶5

1:RAJEKUL ALI S/O MD. FARID ALI, R/O VILL. MAHIPAL KUCHI, PO BALIKUCHI, PS BAIHATA CHARIALI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781381

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY PP, ASSAM

¶8

2:TAFIQUDDIN AHMED S/O MD. MAHESUUDDIN AHMED R/O VILL MAHIPAL KUCHI PO BALIKUCHI PS BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-78138

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶12

ORDER

¶13

06.03.2019

¶14

Heard Mr. N. N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have

¶15

also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

respondent No.1 as well as Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2/informant.

¶18

By filing this petition, the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rangia in G.R. Case No.1191/2016 as well as the subsequent order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangia in Sessions Case No.56/2018 have been put under challenge.

¶19

This case has a chequered history and the facts necessary for disposal of this case are briefly stated herein below.

¶20

Based on an F.I.R. lodged by the informant on 13.09.2016 G.R. Case No.1191/2016 was registered under Sections 459/380/511/302 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the Police. Noticing that the case was triable by the Sessions Judge, the matter was committed to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. However, by the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup at Rangia, it was held that there was no ingredients for framing charge against the accused/petitioner under Section 302 IPC. Although charge was framed against the petitioner under Section 392 IPC, yet, the matter was held to be triable by the Court of Magistrate and accordingly, the records were forwarded to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rangia along with the copy of the order framing charge. However, on 09.08.2018 the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rangia, had passed an order once again committing the matter back to the Court of learned Sessions Judge by holding that even a charge under Section 392 IPC was triable by the Sessions Judge.

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

On receipt of the records, Sessions Case No.56/2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1191/2016 was registered. It appears that the prosecution side had filed an application for alteration of charge with a request to add Section 302 IPC along with Section 397 of the IPC. Taking note of the materials available on record the learned Sessions Judge had altered the charge framed earlier and accordingly, by the order dated 14.12.2018 framed charges under Sections 397 read with Section 302 IPC against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶23

Mr. Upadhyaya submits that due to the conflicting orders passed by the courts on different dates there is now a strong possibility that the witnesses would be examined afresh by the prosecution side thereby giving them a chance to improve their earlier testimony. In such an eventuality, submits Mr. Upadhyaya, the interest of the petitioner/accused would suffer serious prejudice.

¶24

Opposing the said submission, Mr. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., contends that the question of improving on the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not arise at all. Similar is the submission of Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶25

As noted above, by the impugned order dated 14.12.2018 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rangia had altered the charges framed against the petitioner by adding sections 397 and 302 IPC. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to record only a prima facie satisfaction as regards the commission of an offence based on the materials available on

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

record. At the stage of framing charges, there is no need for the prosecution side to establish the charge by leading evidence.

¶28

In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner’s counsel, this Court had called for the LCR. I have perused the same. Upon perusal of the LCR I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 397/302 IIPC.

¶29

There is no dispute at the bar that offences under Section 397/302 IPC are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

¶30

In view of the above, no interference with the impugned orders is called for in this case.

¶31

The Criminal Petition therefore, stands dismissed.

¶32

Send back the LCR by special messenger.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Rajekul Ali v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajekul Ali v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashmi Agarwal Saraogi Vs Amit Saraogi

Dr. Partha Sarathi Acharjee Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Najiran Nesa @ Najiran Bibi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

M/S. Kohinoor Plywoods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Amit Kumar Singhal (Agarwal) and 4 Ors.

Nirmal Chandra Paul and 6 Ors. Vs Jyotsna Paul and 5 Ors.

On the Death of Naseeb Ali, His Legal Heirs Representing Vs Gias Ahmed Chowdury and 21 Ors.