Dismissed

Sher Bahadur Singh Alias Sher Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Dec 2019Cr.Rev./34/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a criminal revision, the High Court of Jharkhand refused to interfere with the Additional Sessions Judge's decision to dismiss a discharge petition, holding that uncontroverted materials in the investigation diary sufficed to frame charges and the court was not required to weigh evidence at that stage.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision application stands dismissed affirming the lower court's dismissal of the discharge petition.

Sher Bahadur Singh Alias Sher Singh Vs the State of… — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 34 of 2019

¶3

Sher Bahadur Singh @ Sher Singh...….............. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ………… Opp. Party

¶4

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶5

…… For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kr. Jha, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶6

4/16.12.2019 Heard the parties.

¶7

In this application, the petitioner has challenged order dated 21.12.2018, whereby his discharge application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of occurrence the petitioner was not even present at the place of occurrence, thus the charge should not have been framed against the petitioner. He submits that the eyewitnesses also did not disclose any overt act so far as this petitioner is concerned. He submits that on the aforesaid two grounds, the petition filed by the petitioner to discharge him, could not have been dismissed.

¶9

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer and submits that at the time of framing of charge, the court has not to weigh the evidence. She submits that at this stage, it has to be seen only as to whether, on the uncontroverted statement recorded, there are materials to frame charge against the petitioner or not.

¶10

After going through the records, I find that there is allegation that on the day of Holi festival the informant was going in a motorcycle, which was intercepted by several persons including this petitioner and rangdari was demanded from him and one Vicky Singh fired from his pistol. It is alleged that this petitioner also teased the wife of the informant.

¶11

The court below while deciding the petition for discharge, has referred to the several paragraphs of the case diary and passed a detailed order finding that there are materials to frame charge against this petitioner under Sections 147, 341, 323, 307, 354, 385 & 504 of the Indian Penal code, under Section 27 of the Arms Act and also under Section 3 (X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court found that there are sufficient materials to frame charge. At this stage, the statement of the witnesses, recorded in the case diary, should not be weighed, rather it is to be seen whether charge can be framed on the uncontroverted materials, which surfaced during

¶12

-2-

¶13

investigation. At this stage also the defence of the petitioner cannot not be seen as to whether the petitioner was present at the pace of occurrence or not.

¶14

Since the court found that there are sufficient materials to frame charge against this petitioner and the order is a well reasoned order, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, having found no merit, this application stands dismissed.

¶15

Mukund/-cp. 3

Sher Bahadur Singh Alias Sher Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sher Bahadur Singh Alias Sher Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahati Buriuily Alias Chhote Alias Odiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nawaj Warsi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mithilesh Kumar Represented through His Grandfather Sona Mahra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kuldeep Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saukat Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gobardhan Kumar Dhari Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Deputy Chief Personnel Manager