Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
Abhishek V. Unnithan, son of K.V. Unnithan - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No.997 of 2023
Decided On : 11-01-2024
CRIMINAL REVISION - DISCHARGE APPLICATION - Sections 323, 325, 307, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the legal standards for discharging an accused under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC, emphasizing that the judge must determine whether there is sufficient ground to proceed based on the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected. The court highlighted that it cannot conduct a mini-trial at this stage and must assume the prosecution's materials are true. The court ultimately found that while there was insufficient evidence for serious charges, a lesser charge under Section 506 IPC was applicable, leading to a partial allowance of the revision.
Fact of the Case:
The informant, Reji K. John, reported an incident where he and his friend Rajiv Kumar were allegedly attacked by three individuals in a car, resulting in serious injuries to Rajiv. A case was registered against the accused under various sections of the IPC. The investigating officer exonerated two of the accused but filed a charge sheet against Abhishek Unnithan, leading to a discharge application that was rejected by the Sessions Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sessions Court had erred in rejecting the discharge application without sufficient grounds. It determined that the evidence did not support the serious charges under Sections 323, 325, and 307 IPC against the petitioner, but acknowledged that a charge under Section 506 IPC was warranted.
Issues: Whether the Sessions Court correctly rejected the discharge application based on the evidence and allegations made in the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that at the stage of framing charges, the judge must evaluate whether there is a prima facie case against the accused without conducting a detailed examination of the evidence. It emphasized that strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed, but mere presence at the scene does not establish intent or complicity in serious offenses.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision was partly allowed, with the court setting aside the charges under Sections 323, 325, and 307 IPC against the petitioner, while affirming the charge under Section 506 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Misc. Criminal Application No.316 of 2023 in connection with S.T. Case No.42 of 2023 arising out of Sector VI P.S. Case No.20 of 2022, whereby the learned Court below has rejected the discharge application of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the informant, namely, Reji K. John gave the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 27.04.2022 in the night at 09:00 O’clock, he along with his friend Rajiv Kumar was going to Sector-VI shopping center, from there, they were coming back by his Scooty at 09:30 O’clock in the night, amid the way, near Sector-V/ C B-type quarter, one white colour Maruti Swift Car came, in which, Avinash Unnithan, Abhishek Unnithan, the petitioner herein and Sanjiv Kumar, all three were boarded and all three were made effort to intercept his Scooty. All three, who were boarded in the Swift Car asked to stop the Scooty but he did not stop the same. The car, which was being driven by Avinash Unnithan overtook their Scooty. Thereafter, the persons who were boarded in the Car with intention to cause his murder dashed from behind to the Scooty, whereby he and his friend Rajeev fell down and Rajeev sustained serious injury. Thereafter, the informant and his friend Rajeev both rushed to B.G.H. Hospital. Abhishek, Avinash and Sanjeev all three had earlier criminally intimidated him on the issue related to Shree Ayyappa Public School. The ribs and the left hand wrist of Rajeev Kumar were also fractured and he sustained grievous injury. On this, Case Crime No.20 of 2022 was registered under Sections 323, 325, 307, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three accused persons, namely, Avinash Unnithan, Avinash Unnithan and Sanjiv Kumar with Sector-VI Police Station, Bokaro.
3. The Investigating Officer exonerated Sanjiv Kumar and Avinash Unnithan for lack of evidence while filed charge-sheet against only one accused, namely, Abhishek Unnithan, the petitioner herein for the offence under Sections 323, 325, 307, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after conducting the enquiry committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bokaro.
4. The trial commenced before the Court of Sessions Judge, Bokaro against the accused Abhishek Unnithan. During trial, the discharge application was moved on behalf of the accused Abhishek Unnithan, the same was rejected by the learned Court below by passing the impugned order dated 30.06.2023.
5. Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 30.06.2023, this Criminal Revision has been preferred before this Court on the ground that the learned Court below has rejected the application for discharge in mechanical way while there is no sufficient ground from the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. The impugned order suffers from irregularity since the learned Court below has ignored the materials available on record, from which, no charge against the petitioner is made out. In view of the above, prayed to allow this Criminal Revision and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Court below.
6. I have heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and perused the materials available on record.
7. It is the settled law that while framing charge, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also the evidence collected by the I.O. i.e., oral or documentary during the investigation. If from the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, there is sufficient ground to proceed, the Court should decline
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 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.
The scope and ambit of Sections 227, 228, 397 and 482 Cr.P.C. and the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under these provisions, particularly in the context of discharge of accused and....
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
