Dismissed

Mukut Bihari @ Balla Son of Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jun 2023CRLAS/81/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Judge rejected an appeal filed by an appellant against the framing of a charge in a Sessions Case. The bench held that sufficient evidence, including call details, meetings, and CCTV footage, justified the charge sheet and thus dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.

Mukut Bihari @ Balla Son of Man Singh Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

S.B. Crimirial Appeal No. 8112023

¶2

Mukut Bihari @ Balla Son Of Man Singh, Resident Of Raysees Nadbai, Bharatpur (Raj).

¶3

----Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶6

Pappu Ram S/o Sh. Doji Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Ghaveri, Police Station Nadbai, Dist. Bharatpur (Raj).

¶7

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain with Mr. Parth Vashistha, Mr. Saurabh Jain and Mr. Monu Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Babu Sharma Mr. B.L. Nasuna, Dy.G.A.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judarnent / Order ,

¶9

RESERVED ON 01/06/2023 PRONOUNCED ON 02/06/2023

¶10

Instant appeal is preferred by appellant-accused aggrieved from order of charge dated 05.01.2023 in Sessions Case No.5212021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case not a single iota of evidence is available against the present appellant but merely on the basis of call details and unverified version of co-accused, appellant was framed. While referring the reasons assigned by police he submitted that in this case role of present appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further: referred the charges framed by the trial court to submit that in charge no.1, appellant was involved for alleged conspiracy

¶12

[CRLAS-81120231

¶13

but in charge no.2 for acting inTfFtherance of common object. He further submitted that in this case except call details and location nothing is available on record to frame the charges and learned trial court had wrongly proceeded to frame charge against present appellant. He further relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 SC 564 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. reported in (1979) 3 SCC

¶14

¶15

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent-complainant and by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record and also considered the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid referred cases. Herein, this case after registration of FIR matter was investigated and police had filed a charge-sheet against present appellant as well on the basis of meeting with co-accused, arranging the facilities and also actively assisting in murder of deceased-Sachin Meena, further the call details, location along with CCTV footage were procured by police to fortify the reasons for charge-sheeting present appellant. The case in hand clearly indicated that it was a case of murder at behest of individuals who were not said to present on spot. The matter in hand clearly indicated that after meeting of minds aforesaid act was committed.

¶17

Having considered the reasons assigned by police in forwarding present appellant to face the trial, which was heavily

¶18

[CRLAS-81120231

¶19

relied by learned trial court in f%"ming charge, I am of considered opinion that the principle of law laid down for framing .of charge under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C were well considered by learned trial court.

¶20

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh reported in (1978) 1 SCR 257, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. (supra) had clearly laid down that on the basis of material available on record, the court can proceed to frame the charge. Even in the case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap reported in (2021) 11 SCC 191 Hon'ble Supreme Court further laid down that on the basis of suspicion or strong suspicion charge can be framed.

¶21

Herein, the reasons as assigned by learned trial court clearly indicated that besides call details, location, the instances of meeting and further CCN footage were also available so as to justify the involvement for the purpose of charge. Herein, learned trial court has considered the entire material available on record. The only objection as regard to conspiracy or acting in furtherance of common object is concerned in a situation, if alternative charge is also framed or additional charges framed then it is not a ground for interference by the appellate court, therefore, I do not find any illegality in framing charge by learned trial court.

¶22

Hence, this appeal is devoid of merits and same is dismissed. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶23

(ASHOK KclMAR JAIN),J

Mukut Bihari @ Balla Son of Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukut Bihari @ Balla Son of Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Narayan Singh Vs State

Smt. Nanchhi Devi Wife of Shri Ratan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirbhay Singh Son of Late Shri Himmat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushila W/O Shri Chandan Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhiraj Son of Shri Balaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Veena Singhal W/O Subhash Singhal Vs State of Rajasthan