1996 Supreme(Raj) 1191
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.A.A.Khan, J.
Jagdish And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Pet. No. 430 of 95.
Decided On : 6-08-1996
At the stage of framing charges under Section 228 Cr.PC, the Sessions Judge is to consider only the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith. Documents sought to be produced by the complainant and permitted by the Sessions Judge cannot be considered for the purpose of framing a charge if they were not part of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith at the time of commitment of the case by the Magistrate to the court of Sessions.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - Framing of Charge - Section 447 IPC - Consideration of Documents - Stage of Framing Charge - Interpretation of Sections 226, 227, 228 Cr.PC - Scope of Evidence at the Stage of Framing Charge - Permissibility of Bringing Additional Evidence on Record - Right of Accused to Produce Evidence for Defence - Object of Speedy Trial of Sessions Cases - Interpretation of `Evidence' in Section 226 Cr.PC - Exclusion of Documents Sought by Complainant and Permitted by Sessions Judge - No Offence Under Section 447 IPC Disclosed by Record and Documents - Impugned Order Quashed - Charge Under Section 447 IPC Quashed - Petitioners Discharged - Trial Judge Empowered to Add to, Alter, Amend or Modify Charges During Trial.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute over the possession of land between Rameshwar Dayal and the petitioners resulted in a violent incident leading to the death of three persons. The police registered a case against the petitioners for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 IPC. During the trial, the complainant sought to produce certain documents in support of the prosecution case, which were allowed by the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge also framed a charge against the petitioners for the offense under Section 447 IPC, despite the police not finding any evidence of such an offense during the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Sessions Judge erred in framing a charge for the offense under Section 447 IPC against the petitioners. The court interpreted Sections 226, 227, and 228 Cr.PC to hold that at the stage of framing charges, the Sessions Judge is to consider only the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith. The court further held that the documents sought to be produced by the complainant and permitted by the Sessions Judge could not be considered for the purpose of framing the charge under Section 447 IPC. The court also noted that the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith did not disclose the commission of any offense under Section 447 IPC by the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sessions Judge erred in framing a charge for the offense under Section 447 IPC against the petitioners? 2. Whether the documents sought to be produced by the complainant and permitted by the Sessions Judge could be considered for the purpose of framing the charge under Section 447 IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Sections 226, 227, and 228 Cr.PC to hold that at the stage of framing charges, the Sessions Judge is to consider only the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith. 2. The court held that the documents sought to be produced by the complainant and permitted by the Sessions Judge could not be considered for the purpose of framing the charge under Section 447 IPC, as they were not part of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith at the time of commitment of the case by the Magistrate to the court of Sessions.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order of the Sessions Judge framing a charge for the offense under Section 447 IPC against the petitioners and discharged them of the same. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. There situates Khasra No. 448 (old Khasra No. 407) admeasuring 2.76 Hectare at village Dhudhwa Nagalya, Tehsil. Khetri, Distt..Ihunjhunu. It is recorded as `Ghair Mumkin Johar' in relevant revenue record and by virtue of that character of its land it vests in State of Rajasthan as per Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. This position is stated to have been continuing since long.
3. On November 25, 1971 twelve Bighas of the disputed land was allotted to Rameshwar Dayal, a member of the prosecution party. But on an application made under Rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules 1970, the said allotment was cancelled on January 18, 1976 by the Collector, Jhunjhunu and the cancellation was upheld by Revenue Appellate Authority on April 13, 1976 and also by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan on March 12, 1982 (1982 RRD 576). The Tehsildar accordingly directed the concerned patwari on 12.10.82 to dispossess Rameshwar Dayal, aforesaid. Rameshwar Dayal unsuccessfully challenged the order of the Tehsildar before the Collector, Jhunjhunu who dismissed his appeal on July 17, 1983. But the Revenue Appellate Authority set aside Collector's order on May 2, 1986. At this stage it may be pointed out that during the pendency of Rameshwar Dayal's appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, the Gram Panchayat, Dhudhwa Nagalya, had filed an application for its impleadment as a party to the proceedings but such application was rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority on April 5, 1985 and such order was also upheld by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan on June 12, 1985. Any way, in the course of such chequared history of this litigation Rameshwar Dayal filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the court of Sub- Divisional Officer, Khetri who decreed the same on August 24, 1984. Aggrieved by the decree dated 24.8.1984, as passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khetri, the State of Rajasthan filed Req. No. 4/Jhunjhunu of 1.987 in the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan which, vide its judgment and order dated May 31, 1988 (1988 RRD 455), held that on the cancellation of the allotment of the disputed land in his favour Rameshwar Dayal had become trespasser liable to be rightly ejected by the Tehsildar. The Board of Revenue accordingly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khetri in favour of Rameshwar Dayal on 27.8.84 and accepted the reference. Apart from giving rise to multiplicity of litigation before the Revenue Courts and authorities, the dispute over the possession of the land of Khasra No. 448 (old No. 407) between Rameshwar Dayal and Party on the one hand and the petitioners and/or other villagers on the other involved in a number of criminal cases.
4. It was in the above background that the unfortunate incident, which left three persons dead-two of the petitioner - accused party and one of Rameshwar Dayal's complainant-party, and several persons injured on both sides, took place on August 4, 1.992 at 5.00 a.m. at the blood-hungry land of Khasra No. 407, afore-mentioned. The version given in the First Information Report No. 212/92 lodged by Rameshwar Dayal informant was that at the relevant day, time and place when the informant, his son Rajbir, his brother Birbal (deceased) and his nephew Indraj were ploughing the allotted land by Khasra No. 407 with tractor, the petitioners, duly armed with lathies, spears, axes etc. reached there and opened an attack upon them and caused death of Birbal and injuries to others. It was also stated that in self defence Birbal had fired with a gun before failing on the ground and succumbing to his injuries. On the basis of this F.I.R. a case Under section 147, 1.48, 149, 447, 323, 302 IPC was registered and after investigation the police submitted a report Under section 173 Cr.PC for offences Under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 IPC against the petitioners.
5. Prior to the lodging of the FIR of the incident by Rameshw
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
