Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3760 of 2018 Revisionist :- Sandeep Chauhan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Raghavendra Sharan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of the instant application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., the revisionists are assailing the validity and veracity of the order dated 27.07.2018 passed in S.T. No. 174 of 2018 (State v. Sandeep and others), which is completely based on medical evidence and discharge application with regard to section 308 IPC of the revisionists has been rejected by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna as well as the criminal proceedings being carried out against them.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned court has not applied its judicial mind and, thus it has manifested error in eye of law by passing the order impugned. It is argued that there is no medical report available on record to support the prosecution case as the officials of the Nehru Hospital associated BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur furnished the information through reply of RTI, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that no patient was admitted in the aforesaid hospital. It is further contended that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence merely on the ground of possibilities conjunctures and surmises. It is settled principle of law that while discharging the accused, the court below has to look into material on record so as to indicate the prima facie commission of the crime and at the stage of discharge, the defence would not be seen. There is inter-se scuffle between the rival parties and informant Jai Ram Chauhan was examined on 23.06.2015 at about 01.10 P.M. at PHC, Sukrauli and the injuries sustained by other injured, which was opined to be caused by hard and blunt object. Injury no. 1, sustained by injured Nageshwar, according to the X-ray and C.T. Scan, was caused on his parietal bone, as opined by the Ortho Parietal Surgeon. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that after conducting a thorough investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the police under section308, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and the learned Magistrate took cognizance under section 190 (1) (B) Cr.P.C. Both the injured in their respective statements have supported the prosecution case did not dispute that the injuries sustained by the injured Nageshwar sustained head injury and his parietal bone was found to be fractured.
In totality of the circumstances, at the stage of discharge only prima facie case has to be looked into as it is not open to the Sessions Judge to weigh the pros and cons whether improbability and then proceed to discharge the accused holding the said statements existing in the case diary as unreliable.So far as rest of the allegations, veracity, validity and truthfullness of the documents are concerned, that all would be embarked upon during the trial.
Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, at this stage, this Court holds that there is no impugnity in the aforesaid order and it does not suffer from any impropriety, illegality or infirmity in the eyes of law, therefore, instant revision lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 shailesh