# Murari Lal Gautam & Anr. Revisionists v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1779
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-06
- **Bench:** Amar Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/murari-lal-gautam-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43825
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

1780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Paras 1-2: The court is hearing a criminal revision against a Moradabad court order (2011) that framed
charges against the revisionists under Sections 406 (breach of trust), 376(2)(g) (gang rape), and 366
(kidnapping) of the IPC.
Para 3: The FIR alleges the victim was lured with a job offer by her friend Priyanka and husband Pawan. She
was told to bring cash, jewelry, and certificates. After meeting the accused, her belongings were taken, and
she was raped by Pawan with the assistance/common intention of the other accused.
Para 4: The Trial Court found a prima facie case that the rape occurred in furtherance of a common intention
(gang rape) and that the accused misappropriated her property under the pretext of providing a job.
Paras 5-6: The revisionists argue the gang rape charge is groundless; the State maintains there is sufficient
material to proceed to trial.
Para 7: The Court reproduces Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., which define the criteria for discharging an
accused (insufficient grounds) versus framing a charge (presumption of offense).
Para 8: Citing Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the Court notes that at the framing stage, the Judge needs
only a "ground for presuming" an offense, not proof of guilt. A "strong suspicion" is sufficient.
Para 9: Citing State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni, the Court emphasizes that the Trial Court should not evaluate if
evidence is sufficient for conviction, but only if it is sufficient to proceed.
Para 10: Citing Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat, the Court summarizes that if materials indicate the accused "might"
have committed the offense, framing charges is justified. The defense cannot produce its own evidence at this
stage.
Para 11: Citing Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, the Court reaffirms that the reliability or veracity of documents and
statements is a matter for the trial, not the framing stage.
Para 12: The Court concludes that because there are specific allegations of rape committed in furtherance of
common intention, a "strong suspicion" exists.
Paras 13-15: Finding no illegality in the Trial Court's order, the High Court dismisses the revision and directs
the lower court to be informed.
Revision dismissed

Case Laws Cited:-

Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460
State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others Vs. State of U.P. (2013) 11 SCC 476
Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368

## Text

5 All. Murari Lal Gautam & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

1779
girl. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined by the prosecution, but
there is nothing significant in the cross-examination. Certain contradictions were pointed out to the
I.O. S.I. Om Prakash P.W. 6 and the victim P.W. 2. The I.O. has specifically stated that the victim
did not tell him that Prahlad, Mukesh and Minkashi collectively got the victim raped by Anju.
Thus, the contradiction, which have been put to the I.O. and the victim also cast a shadow of doubt
on the prosecution case. Thus, on the basis what has been stated above, I find that the learned lower
court has misled itself in reaching to the conclusion that the accused is guilty for the offence
charged. Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

35. Hence the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence dated 30.5.2015 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 565 of 2012 (State Vs. Anju
and Others) arising out of Crime No. 101 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police
Station-Deoband, District-Saharanpur as far as it relates to the accused-appellant Anju, is hereby set
aside.

36. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith in this case. The provisions of
Section 437A Cr.P.C. shall be complied with.

37. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned.
----------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Revision No.- 3052 Of 2011

Murari Lal Gautam & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Shri Amit Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

Held -
1780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Paras 1-2: The court is hearing a criminal revision against a Moradabad court order (2011) that framed
charges against the revisionists under Sections 406 (breach of trust), 376(2)(g) (gang rape), and 366
(kidnapping) of the IPC.
Para 3: The FIR alleges the victim was lured with a job offer by her friend Priyanka and husband Pawan. She
was told to bring cash, jewelry, and certificates. After meeting the accused, her belongings were taken, and
she was raped by Pawan with the assistance/common intention of the other accused.
Para 4: The Trial Court found a prima facie case that the rape occurred in furtherance of a common intention
(gang rape) and that the accused misappropriated her property under the pretext of providing a job.
Paras 5-6: The revisionists argue the gang rape charge is groundless; the State maintains there is sufficient
material to proceed to trial.
Para 7: The Court reproduces Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., which define the criteria for discharging an
accused (insufficient grounds) versus framing a charge (presumption of offense).
Para 8: Citing Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the Court notes that at the framing stage, the Judge needs
only a "ground for presuming" an offense, not proof of guilt. A "strong suspicion" is sufficient.
Para 9: Citing State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni, the Court emphasizes that the Trial Court should not evaluate if
evidence is sufficient for conviction, but only if it is sufficient to proceed.
Para 10: Citing Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat, the Court summarizes that if materials indicate the accused "might"
have committed the offense, framing charges is justified. The defense cannot produce its own evidence at this
stage.
Para 11: Citing Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, the Court reaffirms that the reliability or veracity of documents and
statements is a matter for the trial, not the framing stage.
Para 12: The Court concludes that because there are specific allegations of rape committed in furtherance of
common intention, a "strong suspicion" exists.
Paras 13-15: Finding no illegality in the Trial Court's order, the High Court dismisses the revision and directs
the lower court to be informed.
Revision dismissed

Case Laws Cited:-

Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460
State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others Vs. State of U.P. (2013) 11 SCC 476
Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned Additional
Government Advocate and perused the record of the case.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Moradabad whereby the learned Judge has framed
the charges against the revisionists under Sections 406/34/35, 376(2)(g) and 366 IPC, police station
Hayatnagar, district Moradabad.

3. In brief, the facts of the case as set up in the First Information Report lodged by the
victim, Bharti Varshney, opposite party No. 2 herein, are that the victim and co-accused Priyanka
were friend being classmates. Whenever co-accused Priyanka comes to Moradabad along with her
5 All. Murari Lal Gautam & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

1781
husband, she used to call the victim to her house. On 02.9.2009 Priyanka and her husband Pawan
came to their house at Shahji Pura and called the victim. They asked the victim that they shall
arrange a good job for her, for which she is to prepare with original marks sheet, certificates,
jewellery and cash kept in the house and handed over a mobile bearing No. 9528154814 to the
victim and asked the victim that they shall remain in touch at that mobile number. The victim
agreed to the offer as her economic condition was not good because of the death of her father due
to illness. On 03.9.2009 co-accused Pawan and his wife Priyanka made a call to her from mobile
No. 9548830888 and asked the victim to reach the crossing of Chaudhary Sarai after taking away
all the cash and jewellery kept in the house where she will meet Murari Lal Gautam and Arun. As
the victim was in the dire need of job, she left for the place told to her by Pawan, after taking away
her original marks sheets and certificates of High School, Intermediate and B.A, rupees fifty
thousand, and certain jewelleries where Murari Lal Gautam and Arun met her and took her to
Moradabad where Priyanka and her husband Pawan met her and took her to their quarter. They
took the articles of the victim in their custody. In the night Pawan with the assistance of his wife
Priyank committed rape on her. They also threatened her of dire consequences in case the matter is
reported.

4. The learned Sessions Judge while framing the charges against the accused held that the
evidence collected by the investigating officer and put forward by the prosecution, prima facie,
reveals that the victim Km. Bharti Vashney was, prima facie, raped by the accused Pawan in
furtherance of the common intention of his father Murari Lal and brother Arun and this criminal
acts come within the purview of gang rape. The learned Sessions Judge further held that all the
accused persons dishonestly in furtherance of their common intention misappropriated the valuable
belongings and property of Km. Bharti Vashney under the pretext of providing her a job and
thereby all the accused have, prima facie, committed the criminal breach of trust punishable under
section 406 IPC read with sections 34/35 IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that no case for gang rape is made out
against the revisionists.

6. It is also submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has illegally and
arbitrarily framed the charge against the revisionists.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there were
sufficient materials before the learned court below to frame the charges against the revisionists
under sections 406 read with sections 34/35 IPC, 376(2)(g) and 366 IPC.

8 Before considering the claim of the parties, it is useful to refer to sections 227 and 228 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are reproduced below:

Discharge.
1782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"227. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the
Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

Framing of charge.

228. (1) If after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-

(a) is not exclusively triable by the court of Session, he may, frame a charge
against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any
other Judicial magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of first class, on such date as
he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure
for the trial of warrant-cases in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases
instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against
the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frame any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1) the
charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he
pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."

9. Relative scope of sections 227 and 228 of the Code was noticed and considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2012) 9 SCC 460.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

 "17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms
of Section 228 of the code, unless the accused is discharged under section 227 of the Code. Under
both these provisions, the Court is required to consider the "record of the case" and documents
submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it
appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence, it shall frame the charage. Once the facts and ingredients of the section
exists, then the court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the
accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such.
The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts
leading to that offence is a sine quo non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker
than a prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the language of sections 227 and 228 of
the Code. Section 227 is the expression of a definite opinion and judgement of the court while
section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charage, the Court should form
5 All. Murari Lal Gautam & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

1783
an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is
impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code."

 "19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with
proof, but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial,
could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts
would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be
applied at that stage."

10. In State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338, the Hon'ble Supreme court
held in paragraph 7 as under"

" 7.The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court
has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are
sufficient or not for convicting the accused. "

11. In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,
(2013)11 SCC 476, Hon'ble Apex Court after citing the catena of judgements has summorised the
principles in respect of framing of charges or discharge of the accused and held as under:

"While framing charges, court is required to evaluate materials and documents on
record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose
existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to
go deep into probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground
for presuming that accused had committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of
evidence to convict accused. Even if, there is a grave suspicion against the accused and it is not
properly explained or court feels that accused might have committed offence, then framing of
charge against the accused is justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must
indicate that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials indicate that
accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge is proper. Materials brought on by
prosecution must be believed to be true and their probative value cannot be decided at this stage.
The accused entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by prosecution. He is not
entitled to produce any material at this stage and the court is not required to consider any such
material, if submitted. Whether the prima facie case made out depends upon fact and
circumstances of each case. If two views are possible and materials indicate mere suspicion, not
being grave suspicion, against accused then he may be discharged. The court has to consider
broad probabilities of case, total effect of evidence and documents produced before it. The court
should not act as mouthpiece of prosecution and it is impermissible to have roving enquiry at the
stage of framing of charges."

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2010) 9 SCC, held in paragraph 24 of the judgement as under"
1784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"At the stage of framing of charge under section 228 Cr.P.C. or while considering
the discharge petition filed under Section 227, it is not for the Magistrate or the Judge concerned
to analyse all the materials including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability, etc. It is at the
trial, the Judge concerned has to appreciate their evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the
statement, veracity of various documents and is free to take a decision one way or the other."

13. In the present case, there were allegations against the revisionists that the victim was
raped by co-accused Pawan in furtherance of the common intention of the co-accused. The charges
can even be framed only on the basis of strong suspicion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another (Supra).

14. In view of what has been indicated herein above, I find no illegality or impropriety in
the impugned order framing charges against the revisionists.

15. There is no force in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed.

16. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No.- 5651 Of 2009
&
Connected With Other Cases

Noor Mohd. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shri Shakti Dhar Dube, Shri Javed Habib, Shri Neeraj Dube

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shri V.K. Singh

Held -
Paras 1-3: Defines the nature of the Reference and the dispute. Relates to agricultural land leases granted
under Section 195 of the 1950 Act via a resolution dated 16.6.1984.
Paras 4-5: Details the petitioners' claim of approval by the SDM on 2.7.1984 and their subsequent 20-year
continuous possession and entry in revenue records (Khatauni).