Orissa High Court
Gopal Chandra Sahu And Gopal Sahu vs Choudhury Behera And Ors. on 17 August, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1989CRILJ1616
ORDER L. Rath, J.
1. This is an informants revision against discharge of opposite parties 1 and 2 under Section 227 Cr. P.C. while framing charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC against their brother Prafulla Behera.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the family of the informant and that of the opposite parties had bitter enmity with each other and in prosecution of such purpose the three brothers Prafulla Behera and opposite parties 1 & 2 came to the house of the informant in the night of 11-4-87 and there Prafulla stabbed the father of the informant as also one Basanta Behera, a mason who was then sleeping in their house and also injured seriously his brother Gokula Sahu and while Gokula Sahu, Gopal Sahu and one Sarat were trying to disarm Prafulla, opposite parties 1 and 2 came running, and opposite party No. 1 snatched away the knife from the hands of Prafulla and both of them ran away. The charge-sheet submitted by police shows the knife to have been washed and thrown away but recovered later on. The learned Sessions Judge on such facts refused to frame charge against opposite parties 1 and 2 there being no material against them involving them in the offence. Mr. Parida, learned Counsel for the informant-petitioner, has seriously urged that charge under Section 201, IPC was liable to have been framed against both the opposite parties 1 and 2 and that there has been miscarriage of justice in failing to do so. The submission has been contested by Mr. S.D. Das, learned Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2, firstly urging the lack of any locus standi in the informant to maintain this revision, and secondly there being no tangible material supporting the framing of charge under Section 201, IPC against opposite parties 1 and 2,
3. So far as the first contention raised by Mr. Das is concerned, it appears to be without substance. The position of law is now far too well settled that a private informant has a right to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in appropriate cases where an order of the court has occasioned grave failure of justice. The principles of invoking the revisional jurisdiction by a private prosecutor outlined in (K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) reaffirmed in (Ayodhya Dube v. Ram Sumer Singh) is not of exclusive application only to acquittals in G.R. cases alone, but can be legitimately invoked also at different stages of the trial if grounds for interference in the revisional jurisdiction are otherwise satisfied.
4. So far as framing of charge under Section 228, Cr. P.C. is concerned, as also discharge of an accused under Section 227 of the Code, the law is fairly well settled also that at the stage of faming of charge, all that the court has to consider is to find out whether prima facie materials are available to show the involvement of the accused in the offence alleged and the documents available to be utilised for the purpose are the records of the case and the documents submitted therewith. At such stage, a detailed or meticulous examination of the evidence is not necessary even though the court is entitled to shift the materials till then appearing, but however while the consideration whether ultimately the trial would end in establishment of the offence or otherwise is not available to enter into the consideration yet the charge would not be framed unless a grave suspicion at least appears against the accused regarding the offence alleged to have been committed. The policy underlined appears to be that while a criminal offence alleged to have been committed is a crime against the society and to maintain the equilibrium of the social balance offender must be brought to justice, yet the court must be on the alert to safeguard against the prosecution becoming a means of harassment of the accused where it is not otherwise due. As was observed by Justice Fazal Ali in (1979) 47 Cut LT 385 : 1979 Cri LJ 154 (SC) (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal), the function of the court is not to act merely as a post-office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by it.
5. Keeping such backdrop of law in view, it is necessary to examine whether a charge could be framed against the opposite parties 1 and 2 under Section 201, IPC as is urged by Mr. Parida, For the purpose, at his behest he was permitted to extensively place the statements under Section 161, Cr. P.C. of different persons. All that appears incriminating against opposite parties 1 and 2 are that they were sighted by one of the injured, Gokula Sahu, at some point of time and that further while attempt was being made to overpower Prafulla, both these opposite parties to have come and opposite party No. 1 to have snatched away the knife and then both of them having run away. It appears from the seizure list that the knife in question was discovered from a place inside the premises of the informant's house itself and that too in a blood-stained condition. The knife was also sent both for chemical and serological tests, reports of which disclosed the existence of human blood on the knife. It has been fairly conceded by Mr. Parida that even though such fact is stated in the charge sheet, yet no statement is forthcoming of either of these opposite parties laving washed the knife so as to make the blood-stains disappear from it or throwing it away. Considering such facts as a whole, it does not appear that there is any scrap of evidence to show any attempt having been made for causing disappearance of any evidence so far as the murder weapon is Concerned and without such vital fact having been stated, it would indeed be very difficult to raise a grave suspicion against opposite parties 1 and 2 to have indulged themselves in such crime. As has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the snatching away of the knife might be for some other purpose, but even if it is accepted as urged by Mr. Parida that it was for the purpose of aiding the main accused, yet I do not think from that itself it would be sufficient to lead to a requisite suspicion so as to make them liable for framing of a charge under Section 201, IPC against them.
6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed and hence decline to interfere with it.
7. In the result, the revision is dismissed as being without merit.