Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 321 crpc in Rakesh Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 25 July, 2017Matching Fragments
1. Cr.R. No.840/2016 and Cr.R. No.1053/2016 are petitions under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 30.08.2016, passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur by which the application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution against petitioner/accused - Rakesh Jaiswal by the State was dismissed.
2. Criminal Revision No.956/2016 has been filed by the petitioner -
Rakesh Jaiswal, challenging the order dated 27.09.2016, passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the charges under Section 302/34, 120-B, 201 of Indian Penal Code has been framed against the petitioner - Rakesh Jaiswal.
5. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner in Cr.R. No.840/2016 and Cr.R. No.956/2016 that deceased- Jawahar Dadsena started from Lormi to reach his place of residence at Bilaspur on 19 th May, 2001 on motor cycle bearing registration No. M.P.-26-KC-2937. He did not reach Bilaspur and a missing report was lodged in Police Station - Kota. On 23rd May, 2001, a decomposed body was found near Jogipur in the field, which was identified by one Latel Ram as that of deceased on the basis of the articles found with dead body. Autopsy could not reveal the mode or cause of death because decomposition of body was in advanced stage, being found late about 7 to 8 days from the date of incident. Statement of as many as 20 witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by police. On reading of statement, it is very clear that there is totally no evidence against the petitioner even by way of suspicion, but motor cycle of the deceased could not be found. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that Section 321 of Cr.P.C. provides that case shall be withdrawn by the prosecution with the consent of the Court. It is the duty of the learned Judge of trial Court to grant or refuse consent judiciously on the basis of material present on record. The Court below has mechanically passed the order of rejection, hence prayed that present revision petitions may be allowed with grant of permission to withdraw the criminal case against the petitioner. In the alternative it is prayed that impugned order framing charge against the petitioner may be set-aside.
9. Counsel for the objector replying to Cr.R. No.840/2016 and has raised objection to the petition and submitted that petitioner and two other accused persons have been prosecuted and charged for offence of commission of murder of deceased -Jawahar Dadsena. From the initiation of the criminal prosecution, petitioner has been active to disrupt the proceedings by filing various petitions, thus, hampering the proceeding of trial. It is submitted that it is only the public prosecutor, who has the authority to bring application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., and petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the order passed on this application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C.
17. Criminal Revision No.956/2016 is directed against the order of trial Court dated 27.09.2016 of framing charges against him under Section 302/34, 302/120-B and 201/120-B of Indian Penal Code.
18. This is the question raised on different footing i.e. at the stage of commencement of trial, wherein, the question involved is whether a prima-facie case is made out against the accused for trial of offence that are mentioned in the charge-sheet against him on the basis of which, the charges are framed. The question of sufficiency of evidence considered earlier had been at the stage of investigation in which the Coordinate Bench in M.Cr.C. No.1900/2002 by order dated 02.12.2013 has recorded statement of the State that prosecution has collected sufficient material to show involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime in question and the same issue was raised again while considering the application of State under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. and that being the order of the Coordinate Bench, the petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court on application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. Though orders passed have not expressed any opinion regarding the prima-facie case against the petitioner in the prosecution case against him. Hence this is a question which can be considered separately without being bound by the orders passed in M.Cr.C. No.1900/2002 and the orders passed in Cr.R. No.840/2016 and Cr.R. No.1053/2016.