Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6877
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ANIL VERMA, J
RAJENDRA @ LALA YADAV – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2243 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Harshit Raghuwanshi
For the Respondents: Shri Anurag Sharma
The court emphasizes that a prima facie case for charge framing can be made without needing conclusive evidence, focusing on sufficient material to presume the accused's involvement.
Headnote:(A) BNS Act, 2023 - Sections 103(1), 248
(B), 230 and Arms Act - Charges framed against the petitioner under serious allegations involving a fatal incident. Court evaluates prima facie case and affirms charging decisions based on witness statements, holding that mere absence of direct evidence does not eliminate reasonable basis for charges. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Principles of charge framing and the threshold required for prima facie satisfaction. The court must only assess if enough material exists to presume an offence at this stage without weighing evidence exhaustively. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims innocence related to an incident where he is accused of firing at a deceased during a previous enmity dispute. The charge of framing results from contradictions in witness testimonies and previous complaints. Notably, evidence suggested the petitioner’s involvement, countered by his omissions on motive.
Findings of Court:
The court finds no error in lower court's framing of charges, citing necessary witnesses' statements supporting the charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the qualification for charge framing and the sufficiency of evidence presented against the petitioner during the initial stage.
Ratio Decidendi: Affirmative decisions were based on the premise that a prima facie case is determined by the existence of all elements constituting the alleged offence, not requiring a comprehensive trial assessment.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2243 of 2025 RAJENDRA @ LALA YADAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Harshit Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner/complainant.
Shri Anurag Sharma - PP for the respondent/State.
Reserved on : 12.08.2025. Order delivered on : 17.09.2025.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER Heard on the point of admission.
Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Datia in S.T.No.26/25 whereby the charges under section 103(1), 248 (B) and 230 of BNS Act and Section 25(1)(1-b)/27 of the Arms Act have been framed against the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that, on 30th October 2024, the complainant (Petitioner) visited Prajapati Dhaba for food with Karan Yadav, and Pramod Yadav. He sat inside the Dhaba, while Pramod and Karan remained outside the Dhaba. Jeetu Pardeshi (deceased) who works at the Dhaba, was serving him food. At around 9:30 pm, Naval Patel and Bansingh Patel of Pasura Village came inside the Dhaba and due to old enmity, Naval Patel exhorted Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR Bansingh stating that Bansingh should shot the (Complainant). Thereafter, with the intention of killing him, Bansingh Patel fired from a Katta, which hit Jeetu Pardeshi, who was serving the food to the complainant, in the stomach and Jeetu fell to the ground. Later on, during the treatment, he died. The matter was reported to PS Badoni and accordingly, the offence had been registered. During investigation, Mukesh Prajapati in his statement under Section 180 of BNSS said that Jeetu @ Jitendra died due to the bullet shot by petitioner/complainant Rajendra @ Lala Yadav from his 315-bore pistol. He also deposed the same statement before the trial court. During investigation, Rajendra @ Lala Yadav was arrested and he opined that due to old enmity and several other matter, he has falsely implicated Banesingh and Naval Singh in this matter.
After committal of the case, the trial court has framed aforesaid charges, but the petitioner abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. Being aggrieved by the order relating to the framing of charges, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner himself reported the matter to the police. There is no direct or indirect evidence available in the matter to link the petitioner with the aforesaid offence. Despite the FIR, the investigating officer has not filed charge-sheet against Ban Singh and Naval Singh. Mukesh turned hostile before the trial court. The petitioner has no motive to kill the deceased and due to the accidental and negligent gun fire, the incident took place, which does not amount to culpable homicide. The trial court has ignored the essential Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR ingredient of Section 230 and 248(B) of BNS. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be charged for the offence punishable under Section 230 and 248(B) of BNSS Act. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and petitioner be discharged from all the charges.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for it's rejection.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of Dehati Nalishi, it appears that petitioner Rajesh alias Lala lodged a report against Ban Singh and Naval Singh but during investigation, on the basis of statement of witness Mukesh Prajapati and Pramod Yadav, it has been gathered that the petitioner/complainant himself had fired at the deceased. During investigation, on the basis of memorandum of statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act, a Katta has been recovered from the possession of petitioner.
The petitioner h
