Daluram Binjaram Jani vs State Of Gujarat

Samir J. Dave, J

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

The present revisionist has challenged the impugned judgment and common order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Court No.25, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.19 of 2020, whereby, the application preferred by the applicant seeking discharge under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Heard learned advocates for the parties.

The brief facts of case are that the informant victim residing at Vatva, Ahmedabad has alleged that she had joined the office of the present applicant in 2014. It is further alleged that the present applicant conveyed the victim that the present applicant, who worked at Rajkot also asked the victim to marry his brother. Further, the present applicant used to threaten the victim to marry him. Thereafter, in October, 2014, applicant and the victim got married secretly. It is also the case of the victim that she was forced to enter into physical relationship by the applicant and she was taken to Ram ville Guest House by him, where without the consent of the victim, applicant entered into physical relationship. It is also alleged that when the victim visited the native of the applicant with him in February, 2015, it came to her knowledge that the said applicant is already married and complaint was filed. Thereafter, investigation carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed and Sessions Case No.20 of 2020 came to be filed against the applicant before the Court of learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an application seeking discharge at Exh.7, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.05.2022. Hence, this Criminal Revision Application is filed by the present applicant.

Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the applicant submits that none of the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet is made out against the accused person looking to the facts and evidence available on record. He submits that the entire narration made in the FIR by a 23 years old lady is not inspiring confidence, inasmuch as one who was major at the time of occurrence, one who on her own volition and willingness joined the applicant, entered into physical relations followed by a marriage taking place in the month of October, 2014 only because something went wrong and things did not fell in place as according to wish of original first informant, the impugned FIR is lodged so that she is able to pressurize the applicant in one way or the other. He further submits that victim having visited the native of the applicant and there is no document in the entire charge-sheet papers nor is any statement recorded by the Investigating Agency to show that by the time, the applicant was into relationship with the original first informant, he was already a married man, so therefore, a mere assertion without any proof to substantiate the stand of earlier marriage of the applicant is not to be accepted as a gospel truth since the charge-sheet is already laid and as a consequential effect, stand of original first informant as regard false promise of marriage also without any head and tail. He submits that the learned Sessions Court has completely failed to consider the case of the applicant and the impugned order is against the material on record and deserves to be quashed and set aside and present application may be allowed and applicant be discharged from the charges levelled against him.

On the other hand, Mr. R. C. Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and submits that at this stage the prosecution is not supposed to prove or establish the guilt of the accused person and it is sufficient if the materials placed on record shows prima facie involvement of the accused persons. He further submits that there are sufficient evidence on record to frame charge against the accused persons and hence, considering the over all aspects, present application may not be granted.

Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the averments made in the application and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court, first of all we have to consider the the grounds of discharge, which have been laid down by the Apex Court in 2001 AAR 394 (SC), Omwati Vs. State (Delhi Administration), holding that the court may discharge accused on following consideration:-

(i) If upon consideration that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused for which he is required to record his reasons for so doing. No reasons are required to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accused persons.

(ii) Where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the Court can discharge the accused. The Court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at this stage.

It appears from the record that the investigating officer has mentioned the applicant in the charge sheet as accused and while concluding the application filed by the applicant, learned trial court has observed that on the basis of the police report, while considering the charge sheet and papers annexed with it, when the accused is not connected with the alleged offence then the accused should be discharged. At this stage, on the basis of the charge-sheet and documents produced with it, court should have to take decision. The defence taken and evidences produced by the accused should not be considered at this stage. At the present stage, it is to see that whether prima facie offence is there against the accused or not and evaluation of evidence produced by the accused and evaluation of the evidence should not be considered at this stage. It is further observed that at the time of framing charge, the court should have to compare the evidence produced before the court and not to make evaluation thereof. But, at the stage of deciding application for discharge, it is the situation to make evaluation of the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as defence side and such evaluation cannot be made at this stage. It further observed by learned trial court that without recording evidence, defence of the applicant cannot be considered. It further observed that while considering the charge sheet and other papers, it appears that prima facie case is found against the accused and under these circumstances, while considering the established principle of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court, learned trial court has rejected application of the accused. The learned trial court has observed that on the basis of the statements of the complainant and witness, if there is prima facie case against the accused for hearing alleged offences on the basis of the alleged offence then after considering the submission of the accused having gravity, case of the prosecution cannot be thrown.

Thus, considering the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, and the revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

The trial court is hereby directed to conclude the trial within a period of preferably 6 (Six) months from the date of receipt of this order.