Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17427 of 2018 Applicant :- Surendra And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Niklank Kumar Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Nikalank Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order dated 23.09.2017 as well as an order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.6, Firozabad in Sessions Trial no.113 of 2015, State Vs. Surendra and others and Sessions Trial no.177 of 2016, State Vs. Puspendra and others (both arising out of Case Crime no.264 of 2014), under Sections 302/149 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad.
By the two orders impugned passed in two connected Sessions Trials, the accused/ applicants had sought discharge before framing of charges exercising their right under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The said application in both the Sessions Trials nos.177 of 2016 and 113 of 2015 made by the applicants respectively in the manner they have been arrayed, have come to be rejected by the order impugned dated 23.09.2017 and by the further order impugned dated 31.10.2017 passed in two connected Sessions Trials; the applicants have been charged.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the Trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in refusing discharge the applicants under Section 227 Cr.P.C. when the charge against them on the basis of evidence collected during investigation is groundless.
Briefly put the prosecution is that an FIR was lodged by one Ram Rakshpal Singh at Police Station Jasrana on 07.07.2014 at about 10:30 in the morning hours alleging that the informant is a native of Village Padham, Police Station Jasrana District Firozabad; that in the morning of 07.07.2014 at about quarter past nine, the informant’s brother Ram Gopal and his nephew Ram Dularey were proceeding from their house to their shop located at Padham Adda on a motorcycle bearing registration no. UP 82Z 6390 and as they were approaching the shop of one Pramod Gupta, their motorcycle was hit by a white coloured Bolero car, that was driven by Pushpendra Singh son of Vijay Singh (non-applicant), who hit their motorcycle and after cursing and dragging them, fled the spot. It was further alleged that Subhash (applicant no.4), Santosh & Karamveer sons of Jagannath (applicants nos.2 & 3), Surendra Singh (applicant no.1) and Than Singh (applicant no.5) were also riding the Bolero car, who were all part of a conspiracy to murder the informant’s brother Ram Dularey. It is stated that Ram Dularey, the informant’s nephew died on the spot while his brother Ram Gopal died on the way to the Hospital.
Learned counsel for the applicants has attempted to support his plea for a discharge by referring to discrepancies in the site plan and the fact that not a single independent witness from the public where the incident happened, pointed out to the registration number of the Bolero car or any substantive evidence collected during investigation showing involvement of the applicants. It is urged that the applicants are not the owners of the Bolero car and no motive has been imputed to them. It has been suggested that the deceased died in an accident and the informant reaching the spot later, who has chosen to drag the name of the applicants for reasons best known to him.
The learned A.G.A. has opposed the motion to admit this application to hearing and has submitted that in a case seeking discharge, the disputed defence of the accused cannot be examined to hold a parallel trial. He submits that there is ample evidence on record showing a thickly woven involvement of the applicants with the main accused Pushpendra Singh in murdering the father and son, who were brother and nephew to the first informant.
On a perusal of records, this Court finds that the evidence collected by the prosecution prima facie shows that the applicants were involved in a double murder committed in concert with the main accused Pushpendra. It is indeed not the province of the Court at the stage of framing a charge to go into the details of evidence and consider the truth or otherwise of all the disputed defence of the accused. The offence is heinous and a triable case is ex facie disclosed. This Court is absolutely in agreement with the Trial Court that the matter is not one where the applicants can be discharged on a motion under Section 227 Cr.P.C. holding the charge to be groundless. There is no infirmity in the orders impugned, which deserves to be upheld.
This application fails and is dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Anoop/ Imroz