Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Shamima – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and charges. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments for discharge based on previous acquittal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's analysis on discharge application and trial conduct. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. conclusion to allow revision and discharge the accused. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Manjive Shukla, J.
1. Heard Sri Pratish Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kali Charan Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
2. The instant Criminal Revision arises out of an order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Basti in Special Sessions Trial No. 2800039 of 2016 (State Vs. Mohit and Others) whereby, the revisionists' application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge had been rejected.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that an F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act in Police Station, Parasrampur, District Basti which was registered as Case Crime No. 554 of 2015. In the F.I.R., wife of Hamid Ali i.e. Safia alias Shafiqun Nisha, Mohid, Gyasuddin,
Acquittal of co-accused on identical charges and evidence mandates discharge of other accused to prevent abuse of process.
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.
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....
At the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court must proceed on the assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material to determin....
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 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.
Discharge from criminal charges requires prima facie evidence; mere naming in FIR without supporting evidence is insufficient for trial.
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
