Point of law: Provisions of discharge and framing of charges comes within Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C. which is captioned as “Trial before Court of Sessions.” Aforesaid chapter starts from Section 225, which denotes that in every trial the prosecution shall be conducted by the Public Prosecutor before Court of Sessions. Under Section 226 Cr.P.C. duty is entrusted upon the Prosecutor to open the case and he has to describe the charges against the accused, and in support of said charges, he has to state the evidences which he is going to produce to prove the guilt of accused. Thereafter, initial duty of the Court starts to consider the documents submitted with the record and to hear the submission of accused and prosecution under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to ascertain the alleged complicity of accused in the commission of crime

JUDGMENT :

DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard Sri. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court proceeded to finally decide this matter at the admission stage, without putting notice to respondent no. 2.

3. Instant revision has been preferred with a prayer to set aside judgment and order dated 05.11.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Offence Against Women), District-Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 374 of 2019, under Section 328, 120 B IPC, Police Station-Kemari, District-Rampur, by which discharge application u/s 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist, had been rejected.

4. Sageer Ahmad has filed an FIR alleging therein that on 20.08.2019 his son Md. Tehsin Raza, aged about 28 years, was found lying unconscious in his room and froth was oozing from his mouth. He had been rescued by two other sons of the informant to the hospital where doctors diagnosed brain haemorrhage like condition and operated his brain. After operation his memory became week. Subsequently, he had been shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital but no improvement could not seen in his condition and he came into vegetative state. He was not in a position to speak any word and move his limbs. Further allegation is that his daughter-in-law Nida Parween, wife of Md. Tensin Raza (victim), was having illicit relation with some other man namely, Naved alias Kadeer (revisionist herein), with whom she used to talk on mobile no. 9410820370 and after going through whatsapp chat history of the two, their relationship had emerged. Because of their relationship, his daughter-in-law in collusion with Naved alias Kadeer (revisionist) had given poison to his son.

5. Present revisionist had moved a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. inter-alia on the grounds that there is no evidence available on record to prove that son of informant was poisoned.

6. After considering the material available on record, trial court has rejected the discharge application of present revisionist with an observation that from perusal of statement of prosecution u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and statement of Dr. Monit Agrawal, it cannot be ruled out that patient (victim) was not poisoned.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that with respect to alleged incident dated 20.08.2019, an FIR was lodged on 19.10.2019 at a very belated stage and there was no justification for such delay. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident as alleged in the FIR. From hospital report it is clear that informant's son was treated for hydrocephalus and there is no report with respect to his poisoning. Learned counsel for the revisionist has shown the part of case diary, at Serial no. 4, (Annexure-4) wherein it has been stated that according to record of hospital, Md. Tehsin Raza (victim) was brought by his brother Wasim on 20.08.2019 at about 6.05 A.M. in unconscious condition but subsequently at about 8.10 A.M. they were absconded from the hospital. It is mentioned in the case diary that attendant of the patient had stated that patient, Md. Tehsin Raza has taken medicine for headache on advice of a private doctor. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also drawn attention of this Court towards statement of Dr. Satnam Singh Chhabra and Dr. Ansul Gupta, who have stated that they have treated the patient Md. Tehsin Raza, who was suffering from hydrocephalus and patient was earlier operated at Sri. Sai Hospital. He was unable to move, eat and drink, therefore, he was kept in I.C.U. and after treatment he had been discharged. It is further stated that there was no sign of poisoning to the patient. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also drew attention of Court towards statement of Dr. Monit Agrawal, Neuro Surgeon, Sai Hospital, who had said that during medical examination