Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Krishna Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2017
1
Cr.R. No. 452/2017
Gopal Krishna Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.
28.06.2017
Shri Tapendra Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
This revision takes exception to the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 500249/2016 whereby the charges under Sections 148 and 307/149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') has been framed against the applicant.
2- The facts leading to filing the present case are that on 27.08.2016 at around 10:30am, Awadh Bohare was sitting in the Barber shop to shave his beard. At that time, accused Shera Tiwari, Banti Tiwari, Jitu Tiwari and Bhura Tiwari came there with country made pistol and fired on him with intention to kill him. Due to which Awadh Bohare sustained fire arm injury on back side of his neck and on the right arm. When he ran to save his life, then Sitaram Tiwari, Banwari Tiwari, Murari Tiwari, Brajesh Tiwari, Gopal Tiwari (present applicant), Bharat Singh Sikarwar, Rejeev Pandy, Majhar Khan & Mukhtyar Khan restrained him and they said that kill him, at the same time Vijay Bohare and Amit Bohare came and rescued him. The matter was reported to the Police Station Rannod, District Shivpuri and an FIR for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC was registered against the present applicant. 3- The charge-sheet was filed and the trial Court while passing the impugned order framed the charges 2 punishable under Sections 148 and Section 307/149 of IPC against the present applicant. The order of framing the charge under Section 307/149 of IPC is under challenge in the present revision application.
4- Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant was not present at the time of incident and he has been falsely implicate in the present case. The applicant neither caused any injury to the complainant nor assaulted him. The eye witness of the incident Kalla @ Arun has not made any allegation against the applicant, which confirms that applicant was not present on the spot at the time of incident. The material available on record shows the innocency of applicant. In these circumstances, he prays that this revision deserves to be allowed. 5- To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the impugned order is based on the material placed on record with the charge- sheet, thus, no interference is called for. 6- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7- After perusal of the record placed along with the case and considering the rival contentions of the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the aforesaid charges against the applicant. It was alleged that applicant along with co-accused person constituted an unlawful assembly and in pursuance of common object of the said assembly the co-accused persons Shera Tiwari, Banti Tiwari, Jitu Tiwari and Bhura Tiwari fired on the complainant with intent to kill him and due to which he received gunshot injuries. The applicant is not only named 3 in the FIR rather his role is also specifically narrated in the FIR as well as in the statements of the complainant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Suffice it to observe that at this stage of framing of charge, elaborate inquiry into the truthfulness of the fact cannot be done. In this regard the observation made in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (16) SCC 605, is relevant, which reads as under :
"25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See: Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi V. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya)"
8- In view of aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or irregularity has been committed by trial court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court.
9- Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Aman