Inder Singh Rajpoot And 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Divesh Chandra Samant, J

Heard learned counsel for the Revisionists and learned AGA for State.

As per office report, notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 but no one is appeared on his behalf.

An amendment application has been moved on behalf of the Revisionists on the ground that this Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge whereby discharge application has been rejected and the matter was fixed for after lunch for framing of charge. Same day after lunch the charges were illegally framed for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and prayed to amend the prayer to quash the order of passing charge dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi.

It is a matter of procedure that where the Court rejects the discharge application it inherently means the Court is satisfied that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed offence. Consequently, the Court proceeds to frame the charges. The rejection of discharge and subsequent framing of charge are, therefore, sequential and consequential actions. A successful challenge to the rejection of discharge logically results to the setting aside of the charge framed thereafter.

In the landmark case of Madhu Limaye versus State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, the Supreme Court held that the order framing charges or refusing to discharge an accused are not purely 'interlocutory order' and then not barred by the prohibition contained in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. They are considered 'intermediate' or 'quasi-final' orders because they substantially affect the rights of accused.

This case law implicates that since the order of rejecting discharge is revisable, and the order of framing of charge is the immediate consequence, a revision filed against the former can encompass a challenge to the latter.

The standard practice in the High Court is to allow such amendment application by converting the prayer from challenging rejection of discharge to framing of charge. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 / 401 Cr.P.C. or its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can look into entire record to ascertain the correctness, legality or propriety of the order. Even that the grounds for rejecting discharge are precisely grounds for framing charge, therefore, the High Court's scrutiny remains the same. The conversion is simply a matter of correcting the record and ensuring the entire challenge is adjudicated. It has often observed that when an application is filed challenging the rejection of the discharge application, the subsequent order of framing charge is simply a logical outcome and any relief granted on the revision would necessarily set aside the charge. The label of the petition is often immaterial if the substance of the challenge is against the continuance of the trial.

Therefore, in view of the above, the revision against the rejection of discharge application is not necessarily required to be amended after framing of charge.

Accordingly, the amendment application is disposed of.

Order on Revision

The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 26.07.2024, passed by Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Session Case No.565 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.204 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC, Police Station Babina, District Jhansi by which the learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi has rejected the discharge application of the Revisionists under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

Brief facts given rise to the present case are that an incident took place on 02.07.2023 between the parties. Thereafter medical examinations were conducted of the injured persons and Opposite Party no.2 has lodged an FIR on 03.07.2023 against the present Revisionists in Case Crime No.204 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC, Police Station Babina, District Jhansi with regard to the aforesaid incident. After lodging the FIR, Police has started the Investigation and recorded the statements. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the Revisionists on 03.08.2023 and learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter on 28.05.2024 the Revisionists has moved a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Jhansi. On 26.07.2024, the learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi has rejected the discharge application of the Revisionists.

Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26.07.2024, the present criminal revisions has been filed.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the Revisionists that the Revisionists have been falsely implicated in the present case due to village party bandi. The injured have received injuries due to fallen from motor cycle. The revisionists have no motive to assault the injured persons. The discharge application of the Revisionists has been rejected in arbitrary manner without considering the evidence on record. No specific role has been assigned against any Revisionist. Revisionists have never been previously implicated in any other criminal case. There are many contradictions between the medical version and prosecution version. The injuries are not in grievous nature or dangerous for life, therefore, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the Revisionists. The impugned order dated 26.07.2024, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi is illegal arbitrary and against the settled principle of law, therefore, the same may be quashed.

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the arguments made by learned counsel for the Revisionists and submitted that the impugned order is just and proper, therefore, there is no need to interfere.

From the perusal of impugned order dated 26.07.2024 shows that there is FSL report (Paper No.9-A) on the Trial Court record about the recovery of two empty cartridges of 315 bore from the place of occurrence and a country made pistol along-with a live cartridge of 315 bore was recovered from the accused Ravindra while searching him by the Police officials and the accused Ravindra had stated to the Police that two rounds firing was made by him but no one injured. The other evidence also insinuating occurrence as alleged.

It has been vehemently argued, referring the medical evidences collected during investigation that the injuries said to be caused is simple in nature. None of the injury is grievous in nature and neither dangerous for life, therefore, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. In this regard, it is important to mention that to constitute offence under Section 307 IPC i.e. attempt to murder, it cannot be ascertain merely on the basis of injuries only.

In the case of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana versus Sukhbeer Singh and others, 1988 (4) SCC 551, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-

"Under Section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under Section 307 IPC the intention precedes the act attributed to the accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue."

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Kashiram & Ors., 2009 (4) SCC 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC :-

"If there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt."

Therefore, in view of the above case laws, the arguments of the learned counsel for the Revisionists that there was no firearm injury caused to any one and the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out, is baseless. There are several facts and evidences are available on record and truthfulness of the allegations on the basis of evidence can only be ascertain by the trial of the case. The learned Trial Court by referring several case laws has rightly rejected the discharge application of the accused Revisionists by passing the impugned order.

Thus in view of the above discussion, I find no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order and the Revisionists are not able to make out a fit case, so as to justify interference by this Court by granting any relief under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No interference is warranted.

Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.