Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
State of J&K - Appellant
Versus
Ranjit Singh and Ors - Respondent
Cr.Rev. No. 62 of 2007 c/w Cr. Rev.No. 38 of 2004
Decided on : 14-12-2018
Discharge - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 268, 269 - The court considered the record and documents submitted, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, discharged the accused. The court held that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The revisional powers of the High Court were exercised to correct the grave failure or miscarriage of justice arising from erroneous or defective orders.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons were involved in a violent incident resulting in the death of one individual and serious injuries to others. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 302/147 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act. The trial court discharged the accused, stating that there was no evidence to show that the accused had shared a common intention to cause harm or had conspired with the actual assailants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient evidence to presume that the discharged accused had committed the offence of murder along with other accused. The court held that the order of discharge was illegal, incorrect, and not in accordance with the cardinal principles of law governing the subject. The court allowed the revision and directed the trial court to frame charges after arresting the accused/respondents.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and whether the order of discharge was in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the time of framing charges, the judge has the power to sift and weigh the evidence to determine whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The court also highlighted the wide revisional powers of the High Court, which are exercised to correct grave failure or miscarriage of justice arising from erroneous or defective orders.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision, set aside the order of discharge, and directed the trial court to frame charges after arresting the accused/respondents.
1. At the very out-set, it is pertinent to mention here that while perusing the judicial file Cr. Rev. No.38/2004, it became evident that Criminal Revision No.38/2004 was dismissed on 19.05.2006 having become infructuous on the ground that the State has already filed the appeal against the same order and the said appeal was subsequently treated as Criminal Revision No.62/2007 at the request of learned State Counsel.
2. Now vide this judgment Cr. Rev. No. 62/2007 is being disposed of only as the same is directed against the order dated 26.02.2004 passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu, by virtue of which accused persons (except Pritpal Singh and Shabil Singh) namely Ranjit Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Kulbir Singh have been discharged in FIR No.116 of 2003 for commission of offences under Sections 302/147 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution as per the F.I.R lodged on 01.08.2003, is that Gurmeet Singh, Mandeep Singh and Manjeet were going towards their home on the Motorcycle No.2662-JK02B and, when they reached at Model Town Chowk N.H.W. at about 10.30 p.m, they saw a Gypsy No.0484-JK06 following them. It is alleged in the F.I.R that in the Gypsy accused Pritpal Singh, Shabil Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Kulbir Singh and Dilawar Singh were found sitting and were following the Motorcycle of the aforesaid persons. When this Gypsy reached at Model Town Chowk crossing, the said Gypsy struck against the Motorcycle and all the three riders of the Motorcycle fell down. Pritpal Singh, Shabil Singh and Kulbir Singh came out of this Gypsy equipped with kirches and started inflicting injuries with these kirches on all the three riders of Motorcycle. The other two persons who were sitting in the Gypsy were instructing these persons to kill all the three riders of the motorcycle, who were seriously injured and after causing serious blows on the riders of the motorcycle, the party fled away from the spot. The injured were taken to the GMC Hospital for treatment. Accordingly, FIR No.116 of 2003 for commission of offences under Sections 307/147 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act was registered and investigation started. During the investigation Manjeet Singh died in the Hospital, and offence under Section 302 RPC was added. After the completion of the investigation, challan was produced in the competent court.
4. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in the impugned order of discharge dated 26.02.2004 has observed that as per the challan produced by the police, story alleged in the F.I.R. has been changed. As per the F.I.R Dilawer Singh had participated in this occurrence, but after investigation of the case the I.O. has stated in the challan that Dilawer Singh was not involved in the case. The police in place of Dilawer Singh involved one Ranjit Singh as an accused in the case, and in the challan it has been stated that Dilawer Singh has been given benefit of Section 169 Cr.P.C. and the name of Dilawer Singh has been substituted by someone else, namely, Ranjit Singh. Further that there is one more difference between the contents of challan and F.I.R. As per the F.I.R. accused Pritpal Singh, Shabil Singh and Kuldeep Singh had come down from the Gypsy and inflicted injuries with their kirches, but in the challan it has been concluded that one Pritpal Singh and Shabil Singh came out from the Gypsy and inflicted injuries with their kirch, so the name of the Kulbir Singh has been deleted from the persons who had caused injuries. As per the F.I.R., it is alleged by the prosecution that Dilawer Singh had asked Kuldeep and other three accused persons to kill the injured persons, but in the challan the prosecution has come up with a new story that Kuldeep, Kulbir and Ranjit had not come out from the Gypsy and all these three person, while sitting in the Gypsy had instructed other two accused to kill the injured persons.
5. I have considered the rival contentions. Counsel for petitioners have argued that order of discharge is totally illeg
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
