SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(MP) 793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J.P. Gupta, J.
Brij Bhooshan Sharma – Applicant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 2033 of 2016
Decided On : 20-10-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Shri. P.R. Bhave, Senior Advocate with Shri. Devdatt Bhave, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Shri. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Prima facie evidence is required to connect the accused with the alleged crime, and the court must consider this evidence before framing charges.

Headnote:

Criminal Revision - Charge under Section 409 of IPC - Sections 409, 120-B of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120-B of the IPC in the context of the case. It emphasized the need for prima facie evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime and highlighted the legal principles related to framing charges and conspiracy under the IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, an In-charge of a police station, challenged the framing of charges against him for an alleged offence related to the handling of seized cattle. He argued that he was not directly involved in the investigation and had no knowledge of any irregularities. The court found that there was no prima facie evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged crime and discharged him from the charge.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant was not directly involved in the alleged offence and there was no evidence to suggest his involvement. It emphasized the need for prima facie evidence to frame charges and concluded that the applicant should be discharged from the charge.

Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged offence under Section 409 of the IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of prima facie evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime and highlighted the principles related to framing charges and conspiracy under the IPC.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the applicant was discharged from the charge for the offence under Section 409 of the IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

ORDER :

J.P. Gupta, J.

The applicant-accused has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2016 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge of Additional Judge Link Court Sausar, District Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No.300035/2016 whereby charge under sections 409 read with Section 120-B of the I.P.C. has been framed against the applicant/accused.

2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that at the relevant time applicant was posted as In-charge of Police Station Pandhurna and other co-accused R.P. Gaydhane was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the same Police Station. On 30.05.2016 some people were carrying 104 oxes for the purpose of slaughtering. The said oxes were rescued by the members of the Bajrang Dal and brought in the Police Station Pandhurna. On that day R.P. Gaydhane, Assistant Sub Inspector was In-charge of the Police Station as applicant was out of station in connection with investigation of other crime. Shri R.P. Gaydhane registered the complaint vide Crime No. 245/2014 for the offence under Sections 4, 6, 9 of M.P. Gau Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, 2004, r/w Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Sections 6, 10, 11 of M.P. Krishi Upyogi Sanrakshan Adhiniyam and the cattle were seized and medical examination was also conducted. Thereafter, the aforesaid cattle were taken to Gausala situated near about 25 Kilometers away from Pandhurna where Manager of the Gausala refused to receive the cattle as there was no place and other facility to manage the cattle. Thereafter, other Police Officers found two persons to handover the cattle for the purpose of security and grazing them and the cattle was handed over to them and took their signatures on Hifajatnama.

2.1 Thereafter, a complaint was made before the JMFC, Pandhurna to the effect that the Police has handed over the seized cattle to some slaughter illegally. Then the concerned JMFC called the report. On 21.6.2014, on perusal of Report, the JMFC found that the cattle were given to one Manoj and Mannu on Hifajatnama. But the documents prepared for the purpose of Hifajatnama were not found to be proper and in accordance with law, therefore, the police was directed to produce all the seized cattle before the Court. However, the Police failed to produce the seized cattle before the Court of the Magistrate on 25.06.2014. Then, the police was further directed to produce the cattle on 28.06.2014. On 28.06.2014, the cattle were not produced, instead Hifajatdar Mannu was produced and he narrated before the Court that he is illiterate person and what is written in the Hifajatnama is not known to him; but, he accepted that he and Manoj were interested the cattle for the purpose of grazing. Thereafter, on 03.07.2014, Manoj was also produced before the Court. He also supported the statement given by the Mannu. Thereafter, the police was directed to produce all the seized cattle on 07.07.2014. On that day R.P. Gaydhane, Sub Inspector informed to the Court that cattle are coming, they are 5 kilometer far from the court but on that day cattle were not produced and on 08.07.2014 near about 12.00 am, R.P. Gaydhane, Sub Inspector informed to the Court that the cattle are present in the premises near to the Court and the cattle were inspected by the Presiding Officer, Veterinary Doctor and other persons. It was found that only 84 cattle were present and there was also discrepancies about the age, health and other things relating to the identification of the cattle which show that some cattle have been changed. Apart from it, it was informed that some missing cattle have died. Thereafter, the JMFC directed to Police Station, Pandhurna to register an FIR against the applicant and Sub-Inspector R.P. Gaydhane for the offences under Sections 409, 466 and 167 of the IPC. On the aforesaid direction, in Police Station Pandhurna Crime No. 314/14 was registered and a










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top