Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
Mannan Mallick, S/o. Md. Sueman & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No.1239 of 2016 with Criminal Revision No.1176 of 2016 and Criminal Revision No.1528 of 2016
Decided On : 01-10-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 228 - Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 353, 332, 435 - Arms Act - Section 27 – Offence of Murder – Unlawful assembly – Rioting, armed with deadly weapons – Voluntarily causing hurt - Petitioners are among 27 named accused who alongwith 8-10 thousand persons were involved in vandalism - Subsequently, section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 was added in report vide order dated - A glance at written report would reveal that complainant was deputed to oversee entire operation for removal of illegal encroachments over BCCL quarters - There was a briefing conducted at police line at 07:30 AM with officers of BCCL, police officers as well as Magistrates and operation for removing illegal encroachments started at around 09:00 AM - Complainant observed that within 15 minutes about 2000 persons carrying deadly weapons gathered there and started pelting stone at task force - Complainant issued warnings on loudspeaker and directed police personnel to disperse mob, however, mob became unruly and attacked police personnel and police vehicles - Several rounds of tear gas were used and he ordered use of lathi charge by police personnel in self defence - Whether evidence is sufficient for conviction, rather test is whether a prima-facie case as alleged by prosecution is made out against accused – Held, Court would just indicate that section 141 of Penal Code, 1860 which defines unlawful assembly provides that assembly of five or more persons, if object of assembly was to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means, shall be designated as unlawful assembly - Section 146 defines rioting to mean that wherever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of common object of such assembly every member of such assembly is guilty of offence of rioting is also in same terms which makes every member of unlawful assembly liable for act of one or the other - Second part of section 149 of Penal Code, 1860 further makes it clear that any overt act by every member of unlawful assembly is not necessary and mere knowledge that common object of unlawful assembly was act accomplished is sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon each accused - In view of aforesaid discussions, Court do not find any illegality in order dated passed in S.T. Case No. And accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1239 of 2016, Criminal Revision No. and Criminal Revision No. 1528 of 2016 are dismissed.
ORDER :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
In Criminal Revision No. 1239 of 2016, Mannan Mallick and Hubban Mallick @ Md. Hubban Mallick are the petitioners and in Criminal Revision No. 1528 of 2016, Arbind Kumar Singh is the petitioner.
2. Criminal Revision No. 1176 of 2016 was filed by Niraj Singh and Bachha Singh. The proceeding dated 15th February 2021 in this criminal revision petition records statement of Sri. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel that Niraj Singh had in the meantime passed away.
3. By an order dated 23rd July 2021, Criminal Revision No. 1176 of 2016 was dismissed as abated qua Niraj Singh who was petitioner no. 1 in the said criminal revision petition.
4. Initially when these criminal revision petitions were listed before me, there was one more petition filed by Om Prakash Lal @ O.P. Lala vide Criminal Revision No. 1519 of 2016 which was also dismissed as abated on death of Om Prakash Lal @ O.P. Lala.
5. By a common order dated 01st August 2016, the petitions filed under section 227 read with section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by these petitioners and other accused were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad.
6. The learned Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad in the order dated 01st August 2016 has observed that sufficient materials are available on record to frame charges against the accused-applicants. The statements of witnesses recorded in atleast 52 paragraphs of the case-diary and the evidences referred to in paragraph nos. 188, 205, 211, 375, 409 and other paragraphs of the case-diary give prima-facie evidence of use of deadly weapons, explosives etc. which caused death of 4 persons and resulted in injury of 20-25 persons.
7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad has held as under :
In the instant case cognizance has been taken by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad on 12-08-2011. u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 353, 332, 4
The Court's decision was based on the application of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to determine whether a prima facie case was made out against the Accused for the matter to p....
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.
At the stage of framing of the charge, the accused has no right to produce any material, and the trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case to determine whether a case has be....
The court ruled that mere presence at a crime scene does not absolve liability; sufficient evidence must exist to proceed against accused under relevant sections of law.
Charges must be framed only after considering all evidence, including supplementary reports, to ensure fair trial rights of the accused.
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
