Pooran Lal and Others vs State

Aruna Suresh, J.—Complainant Raj Pal who happens to be the husband of Petitioner No. 2 Ms. Raj Rani filed a criminal complaint on 27.01.2003 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate with the allegations that on 27.08.2001, the Petitioner Nos. 1,3 and 4 with a common intention of causing hurt on his person came to the house of the complainant at Village Rajokari. Petitioner No. 3 Rameshwar Prasad was armed with a knife and Petitioner Nos. 1,3 and 4 (Pooran Lal, Rameshwar Prasad and Suresh Gautam) started abusing the complainant without any just and reasonable cause and Petitioner No. 1 Pooran Lal picked up a bamboo stick and hit the complainant from behind on his head causing him head injuries. Petitioner No. 3 Rameshwar Prasad tried to stab the complainant in his abdomen. However, he saved himself and in this process received some injuries on his person. Complainant was also given further blows with bamboo sticks by Petitioner No. 1 Pooran Lal. Petitioners Rameshwar Prasad and Suresh Gautam allegedly caught hold of the complainant and Rameshwar Prasad inflicted a knife blow, whereas Petitioner No. 4 Suresh Gautam gave fists blows to the complainant. The complainant received injuries from the beatings received at the hands of Pooran Lal, Rameshwar Prasad and Suresh Gautam. He was removed to Safdarjung Hospital where he was admitted and the nature of injuries were opined as simple. The complainant was discharged on the same day.

FIR No. 430/2003 under Sections 452/308/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj on 28.07.2003 on the basis of information received at the Police Station on 28.07.2003 at about 4.40 P.M.

After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed in the court. The learned trial court after hearing the parties on charge vide her detailed order dated 22.08.2005 found prima facie case made out against all the accused persons under Sections 308/452/34 IPC. The said order is under challenge before this Court in this revision petition.

Mr. Sanjay Suri, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that as per the MLC placed on record, the complainant had received injuries on his person on 26.08.2001 and he had not disclosed names of the persons who could be responsible for inflicting injuries on his person on 26.08.2001. He has submitted that the Petitioners have been roped in the complaint and the consequent FIR by the complainant falsely by relating the said incident of 26.8.2001 as an incident alleged to have taken place on 27.08.2001. It is further submitted that this complaint is nothing but a pre planned move on behalf of the complainant as Petitioner No. 2 happens to be his wife. She had lodged a complaint against the complainant under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC being FIR No. 571/2002 which is pending adjudication and she has also filed a petition u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking maintenance from the complainant. Petitioner No. 2 has also filed a divorce petition against the complainant, her husband which is also pending adjudication.

Mr. O.P. Saxena, learned APP for the State has refuted the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Petitioners and has alleged that as per the investigation of the case, prima facie offence under Sections 308/452/34 IPC is made out against the Petitioners and therefore the charge sheet was accordingly filed and the trial court rightly held in its order dated 22.08.2005 that prima facie a case under Sections 308/452 read with Section 34 IPC was made against all the Petitioners and therefore present revision petition as filed is without any merit and deserves dismissal.

Complainant Raj Pal had filed a complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 27.01.2003. In para 5 of the complaint, he has alleged that on 27.08.2001 Petitioners Pooran Lal, Rameshwar Prasad and Suresh Gautam all came to his house with a common intention to cause injuries on his person and to kill him. On his application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned M.M. ordered SHO, Police Station Vasant Kunj to hold an inquiry to the allegations made in the complaint. Accordingly, an FIR No. 430/2003 under Sections 308/452/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj on 28.01.2003.

During the investigation of the case, the investigating officer collected the MLC of the complainant from Safdarjung Hospital. As per this MLC the injured i.e. complainant went to the hospital on 26.08.2001. He was examined by Dr. S. Patnaik on the same day i.e. on 26.08.2001 at 9.50 P.M. On examination he found some head injuries and referred the complainant Raj Pal for x-ray (skull) on the same day. X-ray was conducted by Dr. Ashutosh Pathan and on examination of the x-ray he did not find any bone injury. On the basis of the said x-ray report Dr. Patnaik opined the nature of injuries as simple caused by sharp edged weapon. Injured complainant Raj Pal was discharged from the hospital on 27.08.2001. As per the OPD card dated 13.01 (year not mentioned), the previous history given by the complainant to the doctor was head injury on 27.08.2001. Perusal of the MLC reflects that complainant had given the history of assault with ''multiple injuries'' but the MLC does not disclose the name of assailants or cause of the assault. Be that as it may, this Court need not go into the minute details of evidence while considering this revision petition.

It is pertinent to say here that complainant after receiving head injuries allegedly at the hands of the Petitioners 1,3 and 4 did not go to the Police Station for registration of the case against them, did not disclose the name of the assailants in the MLC and he thought of filing the complaint in the court after about 15 months of the alleged assault on his person by the alleged petitioners. It seems that the hospital authorities also did not inform the Police Station when Raj Pal visited the hospital and remained under observations and check up with the hospital. The fact remains that prima facie, evidence of the prosecution as collected during the investigation of the case is weak and on the basis of this evidence, even if, the Petitioners are made to face trial it is not likely to lead into conviction of any of the accused persons, especially when the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife and bamboo stick, etc. could not be recovered during the investigation of the case.

In '' Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, '', the Supreme Court has laid down principles to be followed by a Court of Sessions while considering the question of framing of charge u/s 227 Cr.P.C.:

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges u/s 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;

(2) Where the material placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction u/s 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

Coming to the present case, after considering the broad probabilities of the case, complete effect of the evidence oral as well as documentary and basic infirmities as discussed above, I am of the opinion that both the views are equally possible. The evidence as produced on the record by the prosecution raises a suspicion but not a grave suspicion against the accused persons. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to be discharged.

In view of my observations and discussions as above, the revision petition is allowed. The order on charge dated 22.08.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in FIR No. 430/2003, Police Station Vasant Kunj, under Sections 308/452/34 of IPC being Sessions Case No. 430/2003 is hereby set aside. The Petitioners are accordingly discharged.

Trial court record be sent back immediately.