Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
Sujeet Kumar Vishwakarma - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No.28225 Of 2021
Decided On : 10-08-2022
FIR - Offence under Section 307 I.P.C. - Section 302 I.P.C. - [Section 307 I.P.C., Section 302 I.P.C.] - The court discussed the legal approach to be adopted at the time of framing of the charge or at the time of deciding whether the accused ought to be discharged. The court emphasized that at the initial stage, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged. The court also highlighted that the accused's defense is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The court concluded that there is a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and refused the discharge of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
An F.I.R. was lodged for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. alleging that the accused opened fire upon the mother of the opposite party with intention to kill her. The case was converted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. after the death of the mother. The applicant moved a discharge application on the ground that he was not named in the F.I.R. and there was no evidence against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there is a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and refused the discharge of the accused.
Issues: The issues involved disputed questions of fact, the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence, and false implication pleaded by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the initial stage, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged. The accused's defense is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with prayer to quash the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Varanasi in Session Trial No.269 of 2020 (State Vs. Neeraj Vishwakarma and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0517 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Sarnath, District-Varanasi as well as entire proceeding, pending before the aforesaid Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 08.09.2019 at about 11:17 hours for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. at P.S. Sarnath, District Varanasi by opposite party no.2 against one Neeraj Vishwakarma and one unknown person, alleging therein that few days ago, marriage of daughter of first informant was solemnized with one Kranti Vishwakarma but the co-accused namely, Neeraj Vishwakarma was having an affair with his daughter, therefore, she was enticed by Neeraj Vishwakarma. It is also alleged that co-accused Neeraj Vishwakarma, after marrying daughter of opposite party no.2, approached the High Court at Allahabad but after passage of sometime, his daughter returned and started residing with opposite party no.2. Annoyed by the same, co-accused Neeraj Vishwakarma, on 08.09.2019 between 5:45 to 6:00 O' clock came along with his friend on a motorcycle and opened fire upon mother of opposite party no.2, who is about 70 years old, with intention to kill her, after firing, both the persons fled away.
4. In the aforesaid case, though the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of first informant but statement of the injured could not be recorded due to her critical condition. Site plan, showing the place of incident was also prepared. In the meantime, on 09.09.2019 injured old mother of opposite party no.2 passed away, therefore, the case was converted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C., entry in this regard was made by the Investigating Officer vide parcha no.2 in the case diary. On 11.10.2019, Neeraj Vishwakarma was arrested and for the first time name of applicant, Sujeet Kumar Vishwakarma, surfaced in his confessional statement as recorded by the Investigating Officer. Two witnesses namely, Raj Kumar Vishwakarma and Ashish Vishwakarma, were introduced by the Investigating Officer and their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which they also for the first time disclosed the name of the applicant. After coming to know about the fact that applicant has been falsely implicated, he surrendered and has been released on bail. After collecting evidence, charge sheet has been submitted on 14.11.2019. Applicant came to know that the Investigating Officer had received information that the applicant and another person who were sent to jail, were not in any way involved in the incident, two persons, namely Bache Lal Vishwakarma and his son Ravindra Vishwakarma @ Lucky were the real culprit, therefore, an application was moved by Investigating Officer, before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, requesting for permission for further investigation in the matter. After permission being granted, the Investigating Officer proceeded to collect the other evidences like call detail record and also recorded the statements of Rahul Sonkar and Ravindra Vishwakarma under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of first informant was also recorded for the second time, in which he has not supported his earlier version and has also stated that why the name of applicant has been taken by him. On the basis of aforesaid evidences, the Investigating Officer filed Second and Third charge sheet on 01.11.2020 and 10.12.2020. However, the fourth charge sheet was filed on 20.01.2021 wherein the Investigating Officer has mentioned that report regarding involvement of Neeraj Vishwakarma and Sujeet Vishwakarma, was to be placed before the competent Cour
At the initial stage, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged, and the accused's defense is not to be looked into when seeking discharge under Section 227 of....
Defective investigation does not preclude prosecution; an accused cannot be discharged solely on this ground if sufficient evidence exists against them.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Trial Court should exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out and should not conduct a roving e....
At the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the court must consider only the prosecution's materials, and strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed with the trial.
The judgment emphasized the need for specific instances of involvement in the crime, the requirement to prove overt acts beyond reasonable doubt, and the limited scope of discharging the accused at t....
The court emphasized that a discharge is warranted when the allegations do not establish a prima facie case, particularly in the absence of strong suspicion and material evidence linking the accused ....
The court emphasized that at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record to determine if there is ground for presuming that the ac....
At the initial stage of deciding whether the accused ought to be discharged, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged. The accused has no right to produce any....
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
