Rajesh Chandra, J.@mdashThis revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 7.7.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Jalaun rejecting the prayer of the revisionist for his discharge in S.T. No. 200/2008.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that the first informant Dinesh Kumar Tiwari lodged a report at P. S. Kandaura, district Jalaun on 16.8.2008 at 5.40 p.m. alleging therein that on 16.8.2008 at about 12.30 p.m. accused Kapil Gupta and Kailash Gupta abused Mangal Tiwari and Gaurav. When Mangal Tiwari objected to this, accused Kailash Gupta exorted Kapil to kill Mangal and Gaurav. Kapil thereafter, opened fire upon Mangal Tiwari and Gaurav causing injuries to both of them. Subsequently, Gaurav was declared dead.
3. After registration of case at Crime No. 140 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 504, I.P.C., investigation ensued and culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet against Kapil Gupta and Kailash Gupta.
4. The Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions where the case was registered as S.T. No. 200 of 2008.
5. The revisionist Kailash Gupta moved an application in the Court of Sessions Judge alleging therein that from the evidence collected during the investigation and the conclusions recorded by the Investigating Officer, it is confirmed that the revisionist Kailash Gupta was not present at the spot and as such there is no evidence against him for framing charges. He requested for his discharge from the case.
6. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution as well as revisionist Kailash Gupta rejected the application vide order dated 7.7.2009 and it is against this order that the present revision has been filed.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the papers filed with the revision.
8. The learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that during investigation the statements of the eye-witnesses namely Ramesh Shiv Hare, Pappu alias Abdul Kalam, Vijay Gupta, Vikram Singh and Anil Gupta were recorded in which they all stated that the revisionist Kailash was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. The contention of the revisionist is that the learned Sessions Judge without appreciating the evidence collected during the investigation has passed the impugned order in arbitrary manner and that the order is illegal. In fact there was no evidence against the revisionist to frame the charge hence the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.
9. I have considered over the argument and I feel that it does not contain any water. It is an established principle of law that the charge may be framed against accused even where there is a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence. In this connection the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in
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. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction.
10. Similarly, Hon''ble Supreme Court in Soma Chakravarty v. State through C.B.I. (2007) 2 SCC 514: 2007 (3) ACR 2823 (SC), held as under:
it may be mentioned that the settled legal position, is that if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed 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. At the time of framing of the 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. Before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.
11. In view of the above rulings it is clear that if there is sufficient material on record that the accused might have committed the offence, a charge can be framed against him.
12. In the present case there is sufficient evidence to show the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime. There is evidence of Dinesh Kumar Tiwari as well as Mangal Tiwari that it was the accused-applicant Kailash Gupta who had exhorted for opening fire and thereafter, Kapil Gupta had opened fire causing injuries to Gaurav and Mangal. Subsequently, Gaurav succumbed to the injuries. It is true that the Investigating Officer has concluded that the involvement of the revisionist Kailash Gupta has not been found in the murder of Gaurav but the Court is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer. There is sufficient material in the case diary showing that the accused-Kailash Gupta is also prima facie involved in the murder of Gaurav and the infliction of injuries to Mangal Tiwari.
13. The learned Session Judge has not committed any illegality in rejecting the discharge application of the accused Kailash Gupta and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Sessions Judge passed on 7.7.2009.
The revision is therefore, dismissed.
