Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35708 of 2019 Applicant :- Arun Tiwari And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Triloki Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 13.8.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 183 of 2018 (Kashi Sonkar Vs. Arun Tiwari and others), under Sections 323, 504, 452, 392 IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Chaubeypur, by which the application for discharge has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the allegations made in the complaint is false as the complainant is residing at village- Mokalpur for the last 15 years and has shown his address at Bhairokala, P.S. Kerakat, District- Jaunpur, therefore his presence at the time of incident is not possible. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the injury suffered by the victim is self inflicted and manipulated. Learned counsel for the appellants has next submitted that civil dispute is already pending between the parties and the with the malicious intention the present complaint has been filed and in view of aforesaid facts, the applicants be discharged.
Per contra, learned AGA has supported the impugned order and has stated that from the averment made in the complaint and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie offence is clearly disclosed against the applicants, even the summoning order earlier challenged before this Court, was not interfered by this Court and the applicant was directed to move the discharge application.
Having heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken into consideration the allegations made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The injuries sustained by the victim at this stage cannot be said to be manipulated and self inflicted when the evidence in this regard is yet to come. Specific allegation of abusing the victim with the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate him in public view has been alleged.
It is also to be noted that at the stage of discharge the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for 'presuming' that the accused had committed the offence :
"It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction."
"Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that the judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The ground in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record. If generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime."
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is liable to be rejected.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 KU