Back
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Rajesh, S/o. Kalyan Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
(Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.) :
For convenience of exposition, this order is divided in the following parts: -
| INDEX (1) Factual Matrix (2) Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners (3) Submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor (4) Submissions on behalf of the Accused/Respondents in Criminal Revision Petition No. 926/2005 (5) Analysis, Discussions and Reasonings (A) Position of verdicts of Apex Court on the point of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. (B) Role of Public Prosecutor and Provisions of Sections 225 and 226 Cr.P.C. (6) Conclusion. (7) Directions. |
1. Both these petitions are arising out of the impugned order dated 30.07.2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karauli in Sessions Case No. 36/2002 by which charges have been framed against the petitioners-Rajesh, Kalla @ Ramgilas, Chatru @ Chaturbhuj and Pappu @ Chandra Prakash for the offence under Sections 148, 458, 323, 324, 326, 396 and 397 IPC and under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act. At the same time, by the same impugned order, the accused persons namely Shiv Singh, Sodhe @ Soren Singh and Ramkhiladi @ Kakaiya have been discharged from the offence(s) with
At the stage of framing charges, the Court should only consider whether a prima facie case is made out, without conducting a mini trial or examining the probative value of evidence.
Charges must be framed only after considering all evidence, including supplementary reports, to ensure fair trial rights of the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused and the presence of grave suspicion against the accused in determining th....
The trial court's jurisdiction is limited, and it should not unduly interfere, and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie.
Defective investigation does not preclude prosecution; an accused cannot be discharged solely on this ground if sufficient evidence exists against them.
The court determined that at the discharge stage, only a prima facie case is considered, and sufficient evidence of grievous injury justified framing charges under attempted murder.
Point of Law : Once charges have been framed, the issue of discharge becomes redundant, as Courts have no jurisdiction to allow discharge after charges having been framed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
