Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rajeev Misra, J.
Ravindra Pratap Shahi @ Pappu Shahi - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 2183 of 2021 & Application U/S 482 No. 13664 of 2021
Decided On : 25-10-2021
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 482, 227, 245(1),239 and 161 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 306, 354,109,107 and 120A - Abetment of suicide - Consumed poisonous substance - Post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted - Chief Judicial Magistrate, upon aforesaid charge sheet as well as entire proceedings of consequential criminal case - Deceased son of first informant opposite party 2 Ram Bachan, was a railway employee and posted as Gate Man at Railway Station Unnao - On fateful day he consumed some poisonous substance. Ultimately, Raghuveer Gupta died at around hours at District Hospital - Railway Station sent a written report to Station House Officer, Police Station Upon receipt of aforesaid information - Post-mortem of body of deceased was conducted and a post-mortem report was prepared - applicant/revisionist have been nominated as named accused, whereas one unknown person has also been nominated as an accused.
Finding of the Court : presumption of guilt of accused which is to be drawn at initial stage is not in sense of the law governing trial of criminal cases in France where accused is presumed to be guilty unless contrary is proved - But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not - Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence - Accused committed offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with trial - Exhaustive list of circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or other is neither possible nor advisable - Court may just illustrate the difference of law by one more example - Accused are something like even at conclusion of trial, then, on theory of benefit of doubt case is to end in his acquittal - Discharge claimed by applicant/revisionist has been refused by Court vide order Criminal Revision preferred by applicant/revisionist cannot be considered now as charges have already been framed by necessary implication, this Court now cannot examine veracity of the framing - Court is of considered opinion that at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against applicant/revisionist.
Result : Criminal Application dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava and Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for revisionist/applicant, Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for State along with Mr. P.K. Sahi, learned Brief Holder and Mr. S.N. Singh, learned counsel representing first informant opposite party 2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13664 of 2021, (Ravindra Pratap Shahi @ Pappu Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 10.05.2021, submitted in Case Crime No. 0085 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar, the Cognizance Taking Order dated 12.05.2021, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, upon aforesaid charge sheet as well as entire proceedings of consequential criminal case No. 6488 of 2021 (State Vs. Ravindra Pratap Shahi @ Pappu Shahi), under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar, now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.
4. Criminal Revision No. 2183 of 2021 (Ravindra Pratap Shahi @ Pappu Shahi Vs. State of U.P.) has been filed challenging order dated 02.09.2021, passed by Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar, in S.T. No. 554 of 2021 (State Vs. Ravindra Pratap Shahi @ Pappu Shahi) arising out of Case Crime No. 0085 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar, whereby discharge application filed by revisionist has been rejected.
5. During pendency of aforementioned criminal revision, revisionist filed an amendment application seeking challenge to the order dated 04.09.2021, passed by Court below, whereby charges have been framed against revisionist.
6. Record shows that one Raghuveer Gupta (deceased) son of first informant opposite party 2 Ram Bachan, was a railway employee and posted as Gate Man at Railway Station Takia, District Unnao. On the fateful day i.e. 13.03.2021, he consumed some poisonous substance. Ultimately, Raghuveer Gupta died on 13.03.2021 at around 22.00 hours at District Hospital, Unnao, where he was undergoing treatment.
7. Upon death of Raghuveer Gupta, Station Superintendent, Railway Station Takia, District Unnao, sent a written report to Station House Officer, Police Station Bihar, District Unnao. Upon receipt of aforesaid information, an entry regarding same was made in the General Diary of above mentioned Police Station, as G.D. entry no. 19.
8. On the basis of aforesaid G.D. entry, inquest of Raghveer (deceased) was conducted on 14.03.2021. Accordingly, an inquest report dated 14.03.2021 was prepared.
9. Thereafter, post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 14.03.2021 and a post-mortem report dated 14.03.2021 was prepared.
10. Subsequent to above, first informant/opposite party 2 Ram Bachan lodged an F.I.R. dated 15.03.2021, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0085 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant/revisionist Ravindra Pratap Shahi and Jitendra Kannaujia have been nominated as named accused, whereas one unknown person has also been nominated as an accused.
11. After registration of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer, proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer recorded statements of first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Witnesses so examined substantially supported the prosecution story, as unfolded in F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material gathered by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, Investigating Officer opined to submit a charge sheet but only against applicant/revisionist. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet dated 10.05.2021, whereby applicant/revisionist alone has been charge sheeted, whereas named and unknown accused mentioned in F.I.R. have been exculpated.
12. After submission of abov
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.
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....
The court emphasized the limited scope of the court's jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code at the stage of framing of charges, highlighting the need to accept the material brought on record....
The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case to be made out against the accused while framing charges, and the importance of considering the broad probabilities of the case and the total effe....
The court ruled that at the charge framing stage, strong suspicion suffices to proceed against the accused, prioritizing witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence over the need for conclusive 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.
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
