Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kumar Singh @ Kallu And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242945 Reserved on 09.11.2023 Delivered on 22.12.2023 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5484 of 2023 Revisionist :- Krishna Kumar Singh @ Kallu And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Priyansh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sanjiv Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Priyansh, learned counsel for the revisionists and Mr. Hari Pratap Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No.622 of 2022 (State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar Singh @ Kallu & others) in Case Crime No.120 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur whereby the charges have framed against the revisionists/accused.
3. The main grievance of learned counsel for the revisionists is that learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. instead of 304 I.P.C. as the deceased had received gun-shot injury in his thigh, which was not sufficient to cause such bodily injury with the intention as the offender knew is likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, as the said gun-shot injury was caused in the thigh, which is not sufficient to cause such bodily injury with the intention as the offender knows is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further submits that there is a cross F.I.R. and the revisionist had exercised the right of private defence, therefore, the allegations did not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 I.P.C.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer and had submitted that it is a crystallised judicial review that at the stage of framing of charge , the Court has merely to consider whether prima facie case is made out or not and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
5. The Hon?ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held that at the stage of Section 228, the Court is not concerned with the proof, but with the strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence and the final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage of framing of charge.
6. The ambit of scope of exercise of power under Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code are fairly well settled. It has been consistently held that the standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording of finding regarding guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of charge. The test to be applied at this stage would be whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. The Court has clearly to seft the element in order to find out whether or not. There is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and if the Judge comes the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame the charge.
7. Thus, no mini trial is contemplated and only preventive value of material has to be gone into to see if there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused.
8. Upon considering the submissions advanced, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order impugned.
9. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.12.2023 A.N. Mishra