Allahabad High Court
Balvir Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 May, 2022
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 123 of 2022 Revisionist :- Balvir Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 9.11.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Criminal Case No. 2952 of 2006 (State vs. Balvir and others) arising out of Case Crime No. C-8 of 2005, under Sections 323, 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sough, District- Firozabad, by which, the applicant's application for discharge has been rejected.
Brief facts of the case giving rise to this application are that on 2.3.2005, a first information report has been lodged by means of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, in which, it is alleged that on 2.3.2005 at about 6:30 p.m., while the first informant was sitting in his house and taking his meals, the revisionist-applicants- Balvir Singh, Dori Lal and Vijay Pal and Ram Shakhi wife of Balvir Singh armed with lathi, danda and country- made pistol forcibly entered in his house and started assaulting him by using abusive language. It is further alleged that on account of assault made by Dori Lal by a danda, he suffered fracture injury on his finger and Balvir Singh with an intention to kill him opened fire, however he miraculously escaped. On alarm being raised, his sons and other witnesses reached at the place of incident and accused persons left the place of incident extending death threats to them. On the basis of said allegations, the first informant report was lodged vide Case Crime no. C-8 of 2005 under Sections 323, 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. District- Firozabad.
Pursuant to the said first informant report, the police started the process of investigation and sent injured Chunni Lal for medical examination. The medical examination report of the victim Chunni Lal shows that he suffered a fracture injury of middle phalanx of little finger on right hand. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the injured witness Chunni Lal, in which, he reiterated the prosecution story as mentioned in the first information report. The Investigating Officer after recording the statement of other witnesses, filed charge sheet against the revisionist-applicants, on which, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the revisionist-applicants to face trial vide order dated 11.9.2006. Against the summoning order dated 11.9.2006, the revisionist-applicants preferred a revision before the court below, however the said revision was also rejected and the summoning order dated 11.9.2006 passed by court below, was upheld by the revisional court.
Being aggrieved by the said orders dated 11.9.2006 passed by the C.J.M, Firozabad and order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, the revisionist-applicants again preferred an application u/s 482 No. 24674 of 2008 before this Court for quashing entire proceedings against the revisionist-applicants, however this Court vide order dated 14.2.2020 disposed of the said application with a direction to the revisionist-applicants to appear before the court within a month through their counsel and move an application claiming discharge.
Pursuant to the said order dated 14.2.2020, the revisionist-applicants filed a discharge application on 12.3.2020. The said discharge application was heard by C.J.M. Firozabad, who vide his order dated 9.11.2021 rejected the said application by holding that prima facie offence is clearly disclosed against the revisionist-applicants. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist-applicants approached this Court by means of present revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the medical report of the victim, no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the revisionist-applicants. The applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and, as such, they be discharged.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer and has submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report and the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and considering the medical report of the victim, by which, it is evident that the revisionist-applicants suffered a fracture injury and the revisionist-applicants with an intention to cause death of the victim opened fire, however miraculously it missed the target, as such, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the revisionist-applicants and the court below after taking into consideration the entire evidence and material on record including the medical report has rightly held that at that stage, there is no reason to discharge the applicants as prima facie offence is clearly made out against them. The court below has considered the entire material on record in right perspective and by well reasoned and speaking order, has rightly rejected the discharge application of the applicants. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court at this stage and as such, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the entire allegations made in the FIR and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including the statement of the injured witness and considering the medical report of the victim, which forms part of the record, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the revisionist-applicants. The applicants even with an intention to kill the victim had opened fire on him, however he miraculously escaped, but suffered fracture injury on right finger. Thus, from the entire material collected during the course of investigation at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
It is trite that only a prima facie evidence is to be seen and the Court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry at this stage, particularly when the entire evidence is yet to come.
It is well settled principle of law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty in Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2021, wherein it has been held that at the stage of discharge or consideration of application under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the mini trial.
It is also to be noted that at the stage of discharge the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak reported in AIR (2019) SC 5604, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
"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."
"Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that the judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The ground in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record. If generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime."
In view of the above and taking into consideration the material on record, it cannot be said that at this stage there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused particularly when the entire evidence is yet to come. The impugned order passed by the court below in view of the settled proposition of law do not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error and is just, proper and legal in the facts of the case.
The present revision therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.5.2022 KU