Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Roop Singh S/o Shri Deravar Singh Rathore - Appellant
Vs.
State, Through P.P. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 368 of 2020
Decided On : 08-03-2022
For the Petitioners:Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Priyanka Borana
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Singh PP
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 20(3) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 - section 160,161,161(2), 227,397,401 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 25,26,27,32,145,228 - Statements to police not to be signed - Confession to police officer not to be proved - Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him - Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc ., is relevant - Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing - Whether Court should proceed with trial or not - Whether facts, if proved, would be incompatible with innocence of accused or not - Whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of accused - Whether trial is sure to end in his conviction - Whether court should proceed with trial or not – Held, learned counsel for parties as well as perusing record of case, along with precedent laws cited at Bar, this Court finds at stage of framing of charges, more particularly, in view of availability of sufficient evidence on record, which connects present petitioner with alleged crime in question as well as heinous nature of alleged offences coupled with telephonic conversation, mobile tower locations etc., no case for making any interference by this Court in impugned order is made out - Judgments cited on behalf of petitioner are not applicable in present case - Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 07.01.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and the petitioner may kindly be discharged from the offences under Sections 489-B, 489-C, 120-B IPC, Section 8 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 3/25, 7/25, 29 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Arms Act.”
3. Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Priyanka Borana, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that earlier the investigation was conducted twice against the present petitioner, but nothing was found against him by the concerned investigating authority; however, the third time, after almost three years of the alleged incident, the petitioner has been implicated in the offence alleged against him, on count of partial investigation having been conducted in the case.
3.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned trial court has erred in framing the charges against him vide the impugned order, as the case remains in the regime of suspicion, and thus, the same cannot take the place of proof of the guilt of the petitioner, upon the conclusion of the trial; further, no sufficient ground is discernible from the record, so as to proceed against the petitioner in the present case.
3.1.1 In this regard, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., (1979) 3 SCC 4, wherein it was held 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 A 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(1) 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 wh
