Revision against rejection of a discharge petition in an extortion/attempt-to-murder case involving alleged ransom syndicate calls and a shooting at the informant. The court found sufficient material in the case diary linking the petitioner and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 183 of 2022
Aditya Singh @ Bittu Singh @ Banti Singh, aged about 38 years, Son of Birendra Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Kishorganj, Road No. 1, P.OG.P.O., P.S.- Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi. ..… Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P
JUDGEMENT
CAV on: 26.04.2024 Pronounced on:03/05.2024
The instant revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 14.02.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bokaro in S.T. Case No. 65 of 2021, arising out of Chas P.S. Case No. 231 of 2020, registered under Sections 386, 387, 388 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr. P.C. for discharge, has been rejected.
2. At the outset, submission has been made on behalf of petitioner that there is no iota of material available on record to proceed with the trial by framing charge against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner buttress his argument by pointing out that during course of investigation, there is no material collected by I.O. to connect the petitioner with any of the mobile number mentioned by informant in the F.I.R. from which it is alleged that ransom calls were made and threat has also been extended to the informant.
Further, learned counsel pointed out that it is the case of prosecution that this petitioner allegedly by saying brother of co-accused Sunny Singh has made a call to the informant on 16.09.2020 and extended threat. But, the petitioner is not the brother of co-accused Sunny Singh which is very evident from the material collected by I.O. during course of investigation as the parentage of present petitioner is not same to that of co-accused Sunny
1
Singh.
Lastly, submission has been made on behalf of petitioner that other two co-accused persons namely Sunny Singh & Suraj Sinha @ Abhishek Sinha have been acquitted in the present case by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 06.03.2024 in Sessions Trail No. 344 of 2023.
Upon aforesaid premise, prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2022, as the petitioner is entitled for discharge in the present case.
3. Per contra, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioner and submitted that during course of investigation, I.O. has verified the petitioner which is evident from Para 10 of the case diary and there is ample of material available in the case diary to proceed with the trial qua the petitioner.
4. After hearing both the sides and perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that F.I.R. No. 231/2020 dated 01.10.2020 has been registered in the present case on the basis of written complaint of informant stating therein that he is doing railway scrap business for last 10-11 years and on 10.09.2020, he received a call from Mobile no. 8809340735 on his Mobile no. 7004410051 and the caller told the informant that he is Sunny Singh of Bokaro syndicate and informant has to pay tax for every transaction @ of Rs.500/- per ton and the informant who was paying this amount to one Amit Chaudhary now, he has to pay to the caller.
5. It is further alleged that again on 14.09.2020 the above said coaccused Sunny Singh made a call to informant and stated informant not to bid as the matter has been finalized with one Rajesh Singh Bhaiya and before the call of above said Sunny Singh, informant had received WhatsApp call from mobile no. 9431698766 by one Rajesh Singh who has also forbade informant for bidding and again on 16.09.2020 co-accused Rajesh Singh from above said mobile number extended threat as the informant participated in the auction. It is further alleged by informant that on that date i.e. 16.09.2020, Bittu Singh (petitioner herein) has made a call from Mobile no. 8809347305 and told informant that he is Bittu Singh brother of Sunny Singh and asked the informant to be careful, otherwise he would have to face the consequences. On 30.09.2020, again the informant
2
received message not to participate in the bid for 350 MT material of Tatisilway, otherwise the informant would have to pay Rs. 1,000/- per ton. It is further alleged by the informant that on 01.10.2020 at 5 PM in the evening two persons came on Motorcycle and one person on the pretext of giving some paper entered into his house and fired on the informant, but the informant fell down from the chair, as such he could be saved. Thereafter, information was given to Police and empty cartridge has also been seized from the house of informant.
6. It appears that during course of investigation, I.O. has recorded restatement of the informant as well as the statement of witness Nira Devi, (Wife of informant) and witness Abhishek Kumar Singh (son of informant), who have categorically corroborated the content of F.I.R. and both the witnesses categorically stated that at the time of incident, in the evening of 01.10.2020, they were present in the home, when bullet was fired on the informant. Case diary further reveals that during course of investigation, I.O. has called other persons (Contractors) who used to deal in Railway scrap and they have categorically stated to the I.O that this petitioner along with other co-accused persons are running a syndicate and demanding ransom from the persons who are dealing with scrap material. During course of investigation, it has also been found that petitioner came to Bokaro on the day i.e. 01.10.2020 along with 2-3 persons on his Mahindra Scorpio having registration no. JH01CS-7258 and the said vehicle has also been seized in the present case. Also, C.C.T.V. footage showing the entering of two co-accused persons in the evening of 01.10.2020 in the house of informant and after commission of offence fleeing away from the spot, has also been collected during investigation.
7. One independent witness, namely, Vishal Kumar Singh has categorically stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C that on 01.10.2020 this petitioner along with 3-4 friends came to Bokaro in his Scorpio car having registration no. JH01CS-7258 and they were having Motorcycle also, but he could not see the registration of the said Motorcycle. During course of investigation, I.O. has also come across the fact that this petitioner along with other named co-accused persons running a syndicate to demand ransom from the persons/contractors. Case diary
3
further reveals that petitioner is having as many as 10 cases to his credit of different nature including murder, attempt to murder, fraud, extortion etc.
8. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal , reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4 has categorically elaborated the stage where there exists “sufficient” and “not sufficient ground” for proceeding against the accused in the case of discharge, which has been held at para 7 and 8, which read as under -
“7. Section 227 of the Code runs thus:
“If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”
The words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really his function after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.
8. The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by a recent decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 : (1978) 1 SCR 257] where Untwalia, J., speaking for the Court observed as follows:
“Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.”
This Court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion may not take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge in order to frame a charge against
4
the accused. Even under the Code of 1898 this Court has held that a committing Magistrate had ample powers to weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a case of commitment to the Sessions Judge has been made out.”
9. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 476 , has held that at the time of framing of charge the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record to decide whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence. There is no need to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused. Materials brought on record by the prosecution can be believed to be true, but their probative value cannot be decided at that stage. The accused is entitled to urge his contentions while entertaining the discharge application only on the material submitted by the prosecution, but he is not entitled to produce any material at that stage and the Court is not required to consider any such material. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:
15. This Court partly allowed the appeal qua the parents-in-law while dismissing the same qua the husband. This Court explained the legal position and the approach to be adopted by the court at the stage of framing of charges or directing discharge in the following words: (Onkar Nath case [(2008) 2 SCC 561 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 507] , SCC p. 565, para 11)
“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.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. Support for the above view was drawn by this Court from the earlier decisions rendered in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 : 1977 Cri LJ 1125] , State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [(1996) 4 SCC 659 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 820 : 1996 Cri LJ 2448] and State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [(2000) 6 SCC 338 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1110 : 2000 Cri LJ 3504] . In Som Nath case [(1996) 4 SCC 659 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 820 : 1996 Cri LJ 2448] the legal position was summed up as under: (SCC p. 671, para 32)
“32. … if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might
5
have [ Ed. : The words “might have” and “has” are emphasised in original.] committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has [ Ed. : The words “might have” and “has” are emphasised in original.] committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. The law is well settled as has been discussed hereinabove that while exercising the power conferred under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C., the Court while dealing with petition filed therein is to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Meaning thereby, it is not available for the accused person to come out with the documents at the stage of consideration of petition filed under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. reason being that at the stage of Section 227 of Cr. P.C., the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and in other words the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him and after that if the Judge comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame charge under Section 228 of Cr. P.C. and if not, he will discharge the accused.
11. The plea of petitioner that he is not the brother of co-accused Sunny Singh cannot and should not be considered at the threshold as it is alleged in the FIR that a person of the name of petitioner called informant and said he is brother of Sunny Singh and as far as acquittal of other two co-accused is concerned, it is not at all a ground for discharge as without trial it is very difficult to assess the outcome /result of a case. 12. In view of above stated legal proposition, this Court is of the considered view that material collected during course of investigation qua the petitioner makes out sufficient ground to proceed with the trial qua the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court in impugned
6
Pramanik/suman
order dated 14.02.2022, as such, this criminal revision stands dismissed. 13. Before parting with the order, it is made clear that the findings so recorded at by this Court are restricted only for the purpose of dealing with the matter of discharge and as such the trial Court will not be prejudiced by any of the findings so recorded by this Court or observations made by this Court, during trial.
14. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this order be communicated through „FAX‟ to the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was sufficient ground to proceed to trial against the petitioner or whether he should be discharged under Section 227 CrPC.
Whether acquittal of co-accused or denial of relationship with a co-accused justified discharge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar SamalRelied on¶8
(1979) 3 SCC 4 · Who else cites this
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.Relied on¶9
(2013) 11 SCC 476 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Aditya Singh @ Bittu Singh @ Banti Singh
State of Jharkhand
Arun Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court