Murashad and Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Vijay Lakshmi, J—This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rampur in Case No. 2066 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 466 of 2006, State v. Murasad and others, under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur, whereby the discharge application of the revisionists has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists are innocent persons, who have no criminal history and the F.I.R. lodged against them is a counter blast of Case Crime No. 17 of 2006, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, which has been instituted from the side of the revisionists against opposite parties. It has further been submitted that from the perusal of the entire evidence on record it appears that no offence is made out against the revisionists under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, I.P.C., therefore, the impugned order dated 5.2.2015, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions by drawing the attention of this Court to the observations of court below in order dated 5.2.2015, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that in the injury report of Nasir Khan, fracture of tooth alongwith other injuries was found by the doctor concerned. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that in wake of the injury report and the other prima facie evidence available against the revisionists both of whom are named in the F.I.R., the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application, moved by the revisionists, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.

The impugned order shows that the court below has discussed in detail about the prima facie evidence as available on record. At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record at the initial stage of framing charges is to be considered by the court concerned.

In State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 : (2005) 99 CLT 348 : (2005) 1 CTC 134 : (2004) 10 JT 303 : (2004) 10 SCALE 50 : (2005) 1 SCC 568 : (2004) AIRSCW 6813 : (2004) 8 Supreme 568 , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the trial court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge.

In Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI, AIR 2007 SC 2149 : (2007) CriLJ 3257 : (2007) 7 JT 181 : (2007) 7 SCALE 25 : (2007) 5 SCC 403 : (2007) 6 SCR 324 : (2007) 2 UJ 696 : (2007) AIRSCW 3683 : (2007) 4 Supreme 280 , it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.

In Smt. Om Wati and Another Vs. State, through Delhi Admn. and Others, AIR 2001 SC 1507 : (2001) CriLJ 1723 : (2001) 2 Crimes 59 : (2001) 3 JT 585 : (2001) 2 SCALE 505 : (2001) 4 SCC 333 : (2001) 2 SCR 482 : (2001) AIRSCW 1230 : (2001) 2 Supreme 423 , it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons.

In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Choudhary and Others, AIR 2009 SC 9 : (2009) CriLJ 338 : (2008) 11 JT 460 : (2008) 13 SCALE 133 : (2008) 10 SCC 681 , it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the court to frame a charge.

In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record, which has been discussed in detail by the court below, the revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed. The revision is accordingly dismissed.