Revisionist, Ram Babu Kurmi has preferred this criminal revision against the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, (SC/ST Act) in Special Session Trial No. 33 of 2008 (State Vs. Ram Babu Kurmi), Case Crime No. 162 of 2008 under Section 307 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur whereby the learned Special Judge rejected the discharge application filed by the revisionist and has framed the charges under Sections 307 IPC and 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act.
Prosecution story in nutshell is that the revisionist, Ram Babu Kurmi along with Upendra Kurmi who were armed with country made pistol (Katta) hit fired upon the complainant and one Rajendra Kumar when they were going on cycle to village Malaka at 9:00 p.m. Ram Babu Kurmi fired upon the first informant Jagdish Varma and such fired by Upendra had hit Rajendra Kumar. Both injured were suffered from fire arm injuries on hip and thy respectively. On this report FIR was registered in a Crime No. 162 of 2008 under Section 307 IPC and 3(1) (10) SC/ST Act. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist under Sections 307 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act by the police. Revisionist has moved the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge on 1.7.2008 on the ground that no offence under Section 307 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act is disclosed and in absence of necessary ingredients, no offence is made out even if entire prosecution evidence is taken at its face value. Learned Special Judge after hearing the application rejected the application on 14.7.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has filed this revision.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that charge sheet was illegally submitted against the applicant under Section 307 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act although no offence is made out in absence of the necessary ingredients attracting the Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act. The court below without applying its judicial mind and without considering the facts and evidence on record had illegally taken cognizance. No offence under Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act is made out as to attract the provisions of the said section, the sine quo non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to schedule caste and that offence is committed only on basis or ground that victim is member of the schedule caste. Moreover none of the injury sustained by the injured person namely Jagdish and Rajendra were dangerous to life and are upon non vital parts. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by Apex Court judgment given in case of Dinesh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in [2006 SCC 771] and Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2000 (4) A.C.C. in which it has been held that in order to attract section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act offence against person belonging to schedule caste should be committed against him only on the basis that such a person belongs to schedule caste.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court Ram Das and others Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2007 SC 155] in which the Apex Court observed that mere fact that victim happened to be a girl belonging to schedule caste does not attract provisions of Act.
Learned AGA submitted that the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist do not help to the accused because two persons have sustained fire arm injury on hip and thy which may be fatal to the life. Impugned order shows that offence has been committed against informant on the ground that such person is a member of scheduled caste. The accused has caused the fire arm fatal injuries to the victim on the ground that such person is a member of scheduled caste community.
The case in hand, charge has been framed under Section 307 and 3 (2)(5) SC/ST Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others [2006 (55) ACC 308 SC] held that charge can be framed even on the basis of the grave suspicious. In this case two persons have sustained fire arm injury on hip and thy which may be fatal to the life. There is eye witness account and motive also assigned against the revisionist. There is sufficient ground for presuming that accused has committed the offence as alleged. Impugned order speaks clearly that the injury was caused on the basis or ground that the victim belongs to the scheduled caste community. Prima facie, there is sufficient ground to frame the charge against the revisionist. Framing of charge is finding of fact which cannot be interfered in revision as had been observed by another Bench of this Court in Ravindra Nath Vs. State of U.P. [ACC 2000 (40) 762].
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.S. Misra Vs. State of Orissa & others [AIR 2011 SC 1103] observed that at the stage of discharging an accused or framing charge, the victim does not participate in the proceeding. Rights of the victim are also to be taken care as also that of accused. The responsibility lies on the shoulder of the Judge. Therefore Judge must give reasons, if he is dropping or diluting any charge, a serious one. It is also necessary for the reason that the order should inform the prosecution as to what went wrong with the investigation.
Having considered the legality, propriety and correctness of the order, impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and therefore, revision is liable to be dismissed as having no merit.
In view of the aforesaid, this revision is dismissed.
The interim order, if any, is vacated.
Order Date :- 11.7.2016 AK