# Aaram Singh & Ors. Revisionists v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 542 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-11 - **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aaram-singh-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44126 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 32. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellants Jakir and Kadir for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 333, 336/149, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and accused appellants Jabir and Shivnath Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 307/149, 333/149, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act beyond reasonable doubt and to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the court. So, the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.3.2013, which has been sought to be assailed, call for and deserves, interference. The criminal appeals are liable to be allowed. 33. Accordingly, criminal appeal nos. 1401 of 2013 and 1255 of 2013 are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused appellants Jakir and Kadir for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 333, 336/149, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and accused appellants Jabir and Shivnath Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 307/149, 333/149, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act are set-aside as the accused appellants Jakir, Kadir, Jabir and Shivnath Singh are found not guilty for the aforesaid offences. They are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Accused appellant(s) on bail need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The accused appellants, who are in jail, be released forthwith in case they are not wanted in any other case / crime. 34. Copy of this judgement be also kept on the record of Criminal Appeal No.1255 of 2013. 35. Copy of this judgement alongwith lower court record be sent forthwith to the Sessions Judge, Ballia for compliance. Compliance report be sent to this Court. ---------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 1500 Of 2016 Aaram Singh & Ors. ...Revisionists Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for Revisionists: Sri Vidit Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Parties: Government Advocate 7 All. Aaram Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 543 Criminal Procedure -- Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. -- Discharge -- Framing of Charge -- Standard of Proof -- Prima Facie Evidence -- Revisionists challenged the rejection of their discharge application by the Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh, District Agra, in Case Crime No. 136 of 2013 under Sections 147, 336, 427, 506, 323, 504 and 148 I.P.C. -- contended that they are innocent, falsely implicated as a counter blast of a murder case lodged by them against Opposite Party No. 2, there is inordinate delay in FIR lodged under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no offence is made out -- Held: at the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt -- only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be considered at the initial stage -- framing of charge is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered in revision unless it suffers from patent illegality or infirmity. Criminal Procedure -- Section 227 Cr.P.C. -- Framing of Charge -- Documents to be Considered -- Right of Accused to Produce Defence Material -- Held: at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider are only the police papers referred to under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it -- the accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge -- the expression 'record of the case' in Section 227 Cr.P.C. refers to the material produced by the prosecution and not by the accused -- probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing of charges and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Criminal Procedure -- Discharge -- Section 227 Cr.P.C. -- Grounds on Which Sessions Judge May Discharge -- Interference by High Court -- Held: the Sessions Judge has power to discharge the accused in the following circumstances: (A) where evidence produced is not sufficient; (B) where there is no legal ground for proceeding against the accused; (C) where the prosecution is clearly barred by limitation; or (D) where he is precluded from proceeding because of a prior judgment of the High Court -- an order of framing charge cannot be quashed merely because it does not contain reasons -- the High Court should not interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons, which in law would amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Criminal Revision Dismissed -- Impugned order dated 25.03.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh, District Agra rejecting the discharge application of the revisionists in Case No. 46 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2013 under Sections 147, 336, 427, 506, 323, 504 and 148 I.P.C. upheld -- revision dismissed at the admission stage. Case Law Discussed: 1. State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415 2. Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI), 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514 3. Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others, 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87 4. Omwati v. State, AIR 2001 SC 1507 5. Om Prakash Sharma v. C.B.I., AIR 2000 SC 2335 6. Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Panjabi v. Jitendra Bhimarj Bizza, AIR 1990 SC 1962 7. Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 522 8. State of J&K v. Sudarshan Khakkar, AIR 1995 SC 1954 9. Rukmani Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar, AIR 2009 SC 1013 10. Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (55) ACC 308 (SC) (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) 544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.3.2016, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh, District Agra, in Case No. 46 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2013 (State Vs. Aaram Singh and others), under sections 147, 336, 427, 506, 323, 504, 148 I.P.C., whereby the court below has rejected the discharge application of the revisionists. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists are innocent persons, who have no criminal history but they all have been falsely implicated in this case, which is a counter blast of Case Crime No. 65 of 2013 U/s 302 I.P.C. P.S. Daukee, District Agra, lodged by the revisionists against O.P. No. 2 and others for murder of their father. It is further contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which has been lodged with the aid of section 156(3) Cr.p.C. It has further been submitted that from the perusal of the entire evidence on record it appears that no offence is made out against the revisionists under Sections 147, 336, 427, 506, 323, 504, 148 I.P.C., therefore, the impugned order dated 25.03.2016, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that in wake of the prima facie evidence available against the revisionists, the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application, moved by the revisionists, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Considered the submissions. 6. At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be considered by the court concerned at the initial stage of framing charges. 7. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge. 8. In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI); 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of 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. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction 7 All. Aaram Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 545 the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. 9. In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that 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. 10. In Omwati v. State; AIR 2001 SC 1507, the Hon'ble Apex Court has restricted the High Court from interfering by holding that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Sharma vs. C.B.I. AIR. 2000 SC 2335, has held that at the stage of 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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. 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Panjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimarj Bizza AIR 1990 SC 1962 has held that the Court may for limited purpose sift the evidence as it canot be expected even in that inital stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. 13. It is also settled position of law that at the time of framing charge the accused has no right to produce any material because the expression "record of the cases" in Section 227 Cr.P.C. refers to the material produced by the prosecution and not by the accused. 14. The Sessions Judge has the power to discharge the accused in the following circumstances; A-where the evidence produced is not sufficient, B- where there is no legal ground for proceeding against the accused, C-where the proseuction is clearly barred by limitation, or D-where he is precluded from proceeding because of a prior judgment of High Court. 15. In Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of Bengal AIR 2000 SC 522, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the discharge order must contain reasons but an order of framing charge cannot be quashed merely because it does not contain reasons. 546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 16. In State of J & K vs. Sudarshan Khakkar AIR 1995 SC 1954 and in Rukmani Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar, AIR 2009 SC 1013, it has been held that no weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused and at the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to confine its attention to documents referred to unde Section 173 Cr.P.C. only. 17. In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record, this revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed. 18. The revision is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 29.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J. THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J. Service Bench No.- 1555 Of 2012 & Service Bench No.- 348 Of 2012 Ram Avadh & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sanjay Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Birendra Singh Service Law - U.P. State Archives Service Rules, 1996 - Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Appointment - Relaxation - Assistant Director (Conservation) - Officiating charge of Deputy Director as well as Director - Promotion order dated 05.10.2012 - Appointment dated 28.09.1991 - Writ Petition No.5968 (SS) of 1991 - Judgment dated 08.02.1994 - Appointment of respondent no.4 has attained finality - Seniority - Inordinate delay - At such a belated stage - Principles of constructive res-judicata will apply - Controversy has been set at rest in the earlier judgment - Cannot be reopened - Failed to approach the Court promptly as contemplated under law - Neither the seniority, which has been settled, can be unsettled at such a belated stage - Both the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, the same are being decided by a common order. Writ Petition No.1555 (SB) of 2012 was filed challenging the promotion order dated 05.10.2012 passed in favour of respondent no.4. Facts, in short, are that the petitioner no.1 was initially appointed on the post of Technical Assistant (Sanskrit) after due advertisement and selection from