Single judge of Patna HC dismissed special leave application against order of Special Judge rejecting discharge petition in SC/ST atrocity case. Appeal rejected as disputed facts require trial.
Appeal dismissed at stage of admission; appellants can raise disputed points during trial.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2818 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2014 Thana- BIRAUL District- Darbhanga
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shailesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-11-2022
This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge-cumExclusive SC/ST (POA) Act, Darbhanga in SC/ST/GR Case No. 503 of 2017/ R. No. 503 of 2017 arising out of Biraul P.S. Case No. 274 of 2014 registered under sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 337, 504, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, whereby and whereunder the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2818 of 2022 dt.30-11-2022 2/5
petition for discharge has been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2818 of 2022 dt.30-11-2022 3/5
motive due to land dispute which is apparent from bare perusal of the FIR itself.
for discharging them because of lack of evidence, false accusation and biased investigation.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2818 of 2022 dt.30-11-2022 4/5
before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge that no charge is required to be framed under the related section.
Special Judge is quoted hereinbelow :
“From perusal of the case diary it appears that FIR is registered on 03.08.2014as per para 27 of the case diary the informant namely Laxmi Devi did not received any injuries and was never treated in any hospital. In para no. 7,8, 9 of the case diary all witnesses have supported the prosecution version as well as there is specific allegations against the accused persons that they abused informant and her husband by their caste name.
At the stage of framing of charge the Court has to apply his mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offences by the accused, the Court has to see while considering the question of framing of charge as to whether material brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with trial. Nothing more is required to be inquired into. The test of prima facie case has to be apply. Even if there is strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame the charge.
Under the facts and circumstances as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2818 of 2022 dt.30-11-2022 5/5
discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the present application has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed, hence the petition dated 20.02.2018 filed under section 227 of the Cr. P.C. stands dismissed.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
mcv/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 04.02.2023 |
| Transmission Date | 04.02.2023 |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the disputed facts regarding land dispute and lack of injury.
Whether the charge was properly rejected at the stage of discharge petition.
Whether the subordinate court applied the correct test for presuming commission of offence to frame charges.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Singeswar Sahu
Sanjay Sahu
Manoj Sahu
Laxman Sahu
Bahadur Sahu
The State of Bihar
Arvind Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
