Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Chakrawarti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 273 of 2022
Between:-
SANTOSH CHAKRAWARTI S/O SURAJ
CHAKRAWARTI , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR GOUTAM JI KI MADIYA
POLICE THANA GARHA, DISTT. JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NARENDRA NIKHARE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE THANA GARHA, DISTT. JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ROHIT JHARIYA S/O SHRI GOVERDHAN JHARIYA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O
SHARDA CHOWK PEELI BUILDING KE PASS
POLICE THANA GADHA DISTRICT JABALPUR .
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD SAXENA, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1)
(BY SHRI NITIN DUBEY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This revision has come up for hearing on admission on this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed on behalf of applicant being aggrieved of order dated 06/12/2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.236/2021 whereby charges have been framed against the present applicant.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no charge could have been framed against the present applicant who has been made an accused on the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in light of law laid down in the Signature SAN Not case of Prakash Singh Vs. State of M.P., 1994 (II) M.P. Weekly Notes, Verified Digitally signed by Note-72. It is submitted that it is held that statement given under Section 27 of the TULSA SINGH Date: 2022.04.27 19:01:25 IST 2 Evidence Act is reliable only to the extent of discovery and it cannot be used to implicate other person in offence and is not reliable to that extent. It is submitted that present applicant has been made an accused on the basis of memorandum of co-accused persons.
3. In the FIR named accused are Nitin Chkrawarti, Gopal Chakrawarti, Sachin Chakrawarti, Karan Chakrawarti, Vikki alias Arun Chakrawarti, Ranjeet Chakrawarti, Tarun Chakrawarti, Dayashankar Chakrawarti and others. Allegation on them is that they had surrounded victim-Vivek Jhariya close to Param Marriage Garden armed with sword and base-ball bat causing injuries to rival party. Vivek Jhariya was attacked by Sachin Chakrawarti, Gopal Chakrawarti and others with sword on several vital parts of the body and their accomplices Nitin Chakrawarti, Karan Chakrawarti, Ammu, Ranjeet Chakrawarti, Vikki alias Arun Chakarwarti, Tarun Chakrawarti and others had beaten him with baseball bats, as a result of which, he was lying on the road in injured condition. As a result, on this information, a report was lodged in the Police Station, Garha, Jabalpur registering case Crime No.623/2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 34, 201, 326 of IPC as well as under Section 25of Arms Act and also under Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(n), 3(1)(zz/k) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. It is submitted that since name of present applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, no charge could have been framed against him merely on the basis of his impleadment as an accused on the basis of memorandum of co- accused persons. It is pointed out that Ranjeet Chakrawarti, Karan Chakarwarti, Sachin Chakrawarti, Dayashankar alias Ammu Chakrawarti, Gopal Chakrawarti have clearly mentioned that Santosh Chakrawarti was not having any arms and, therefore, merely showing his presence, he could not have been implicated.
5. Shri Pramod Saxena, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State and Shri Nitin Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that in FIR registering Crime No.623/2021 at the behest of complainant- Abhishek Chakrawarti showing the incident of 06/06/2021 demonstrates the presence of present applicant-Santosh Chakrawarti at the place of incident. He has admitted that Gopal Chakrawarti and Santosh Chakrawarti had asked accused Nitin Chakrawarti, Vaibhav, Akash, Ranjeet, Vivek and Sunil not to abuse them, then 3 accused had abused his father Gopal and Bade Papa-Santosh when Sunil Gulzar had hit his elder brother Ranjeet on his head. When his father and Bade Papa i.e. Santosh tried to stop them, then they had attacked his father and Bade Papa. Thus, it is evident that accused party itself admitted presence of Santosh Chakrawarti at the place of incident. It is submitted that since presence of Santosh Chakrawarti is made out, therefore, trial Court has not committed any irregularity or illegality in framing charges.
6. After hearing learned learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Section 228(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that if after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, Judge is of the opinion that there is ground of presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then charges can be framed.
7. It is settled principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Goloconda Linga Swamy and another, AIR 2004 SC 3967 that requirement of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. is that there should be finding that prima facie case was made out and sufficiency of evidence resulting into conviction is not to be seen, which will be seen by the trial Court, whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of crime as against certainty.
8. It is also true that at the stage of framing of charge, evidence ought not to be weighed. Meticulous consideration of evidence of material by the Court is not required. Even a strong suspicion founded upon material in the presumptive opinion would enable the Court in framing charge against accused as held in the case of Ram Kumar Laharia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and antoher, AIR 2001 SC 556.
9. In Tulsa Bai Vs. State of M.P., 1993 Cr.L.J. 368, it is held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not to hold an elaborate enquiry, only prima facie case is to be seen.
10. It is true that a charge can be framed on the mere statement of co- accused, where there is no other evidence as pointed out by learned counsel for 4 the applicant and held in the case of Anant Kumar Vs. State of M.P., 1993 Cr.L.J. 1499 (M.P.) , but it is also true as has been held in the case of Paramveer Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 Cr.L.J. 2028 (P & H) that where apart from statement of co-accused, other evidence collected during investigation showed involvement of accused, framing of charge was held proper.
11. In the present case, since there is other evidence other than the statement of co-accused as has been collected by the investigating agency like recovery of a Hard-disk along with DVR, model No.CP-VVR-0401E1-CS containing CCTV footage of the place of incident as is seized from the custody of Saurabh Thakur, S/o Vijay Thakur on 07/06/2021 showing present applicant as member of an unlawful assembly, ingredients of Sections 147, 148 and 149 are prima facie attracted, therefore, framing of charge by learned special Judge under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 34, 201, 326 of IPC as well as under
Section 25of Arms Act and also under Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(n), 3(1) (zz/k) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be said to be faulty at this stage.
12. Judgement in the case of Prakash Singh (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts specially in the light of law laid down by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jagdish Chander Vs. State of Haryana, 1988 CRI. L.J.1048. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality in the order framing charges calling for interference.
13. Accordingly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts