IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1072 of 2023
1. Vijay Prakash Sinha @ Bijay Prakash Sinha
2. Harsh Vijay s
…. …Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jai Prakash Sinha ies
…. …Opp. Part
---------
BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
CORAM : HON’
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ved Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.
For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
---------
Order No. 07/ dated 29.02.2024
The instant Cr. Revision has been directed against the
order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi in M.C.A. No.7223 of 2022,
corresponding to G.R.No.952 of 2022, arising out of Argora P.S.
Case No. 59 of 2021 whereby the application for discharge of
the petitioner under 239 of Cr.P.C. was partly rejected.
2. The brief facts leading to this Cr. Revision are that the
informant had given the written information with the Police
Station concerned with these allegations that the informant are
four brothers including himself. They are Sheo Prakash Sinha,
Vijay Prakash Sinha, Ravi Prakash Sinha and Jay Prakash
Sinha. Two brothers Sheo Prakash Sinha and Ravi Prakash
Sinha reside on the ground floor and a few days back, his
brother Ravi Prakash Sinha had gone to his flat. The rest of his
two brothers Vijay Prakash Sinha and Jay Prakash Sinha both
reside on the upper floor. On 24.02.2021 the informant was
going to the lavatory. He was obstructed by Vijay Prakash
Sinha to go there and began to beat him. His wife and his son
2
both came to rescue Vijay Prakash Sinha and his son Harsh
Vijay @ Rishi both had also assaulted them whereby his wife,
he and his son sustained injuries. On this written information
case crime Argora P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 was registered
under Sections 341/323/354/34 of I.P.C. The I.O. conducted
the investigation and statement of the informant was recorded
in para 3 of the case diary in which he reiterated all the
allegations which were made in the written information itself.
In para 6 of the case diary statement of Subham Prakash, son
of informant and in para 7 of the case diary statement of Indira
Sinha, the wife of the informant was also recorded in which
both have corroborated the prosecution story. In para 15 of the
case diary statement of independent witness Anita Minz was
also recorded who also corroborated the prosecution story. In
para 24 of the case diary is the injury report of Jay Prakash
Sinha, Shubham Prakash and Indra Sinha.
3. The I.O. after concluding the investigation filed
charge-sheet against Vijay Prakash Sinha and Harsh Vijay for
the offence under Sections 341/323/354/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. The accused persons Vijay Prakash Sinha and Harsh
Vijay both had moved the application for discharge before the
trial court. The very application was partly allowed by the
learned court-below and partly rejected vide order dated
12.07.2023 whereby both the accused were discharged from
the offence under Sections 354 of I.P.C.; while the discharge
3
application was rejected for the offence under Sections 341 and
323 read with 34 of I.P.C.
5. Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 this
Cr. Revision has been preferred on the ground that the
impugned order passed by the learned court-below is based on
erroneous finding. The civil dispute was also pending between
the parties. There was no material on record to substantiate
the allegation made in the F.I.R. The impugned order has been
passed by the learned court-below without applying judicial
mind.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel of parties and perused
the material on record.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
indeed there was a civil dispute between the parties and on
petty matter the quarrel arose between them. So far as the
injuries are concerned, the same might have sustained on
account of falling in the scuffling and there was a separate
lavatory of the petitioner and the informant. As such the very
basis of the F.I.R. is based on wrong assertions and contended
that the learned court-below has not considered on these
materials while rejecting the application for discharge of the
petitioner for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 of I.P.C.
as well.
8. The learned Counsel for the O.P.No.2 and the learned
A.P.P. vehemently opposed the contentions made by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that there are
4
specific allegation in the F.I.R. itself and the same is also
corroborated with the statement of the informant and other two
injured witnesses, the prosecution story is also supported with
medical evidence as well. As such the impugned order passed
by the learned court-below is based on the proper appreciation
of the material on record.
9. It is the settled law that while disposing the discharge
application, the Court has to go through the allegations made
in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected by the I.O. during the
investigation. While disposing the discharge application, the
Court cannot take into consideration the defence averment of
the accused until and unless the same overrules the whole
prosecution story.
10. It is also the settled law that while disposing the
discharge application the appreciation of the evidence,
marshalling of evidence is not permissible. While disposing the
discharge application, the Court cannot conduct mini trial. If
from the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the evidence
collected by the I.O., there are sufficient grounds to proceed
against the accused for the offence alleged, the Court should
decline to allow the discharge application.
11. Palwinder Singh vrs.
The Hon’ble Apex Court held in
Balwinder singh (2008) 14 SCC 504:
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court
committed a serious error in passing the
impugned judgment insofar as it entered into the
realm of appreciation of evidence at the stage of
5
the framing of the charges itself. The jurisdiction
of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising
power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is limited. Charges can also be framed
on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and
appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of
the Court at that point of time. This aspect of the
matter has been considered by this Court in State
of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 SCC
568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] wherein it was held as
under: (SCC p. 579, para 23)
23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, in our
“
view, clearly the law is that at the time of framing
charge or taking cognizance the accused has no
right to produce any material. Satish Mehra
case [Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn., (1996) 9 SCC
766 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1104] holding that the trial
court has powers to consider even materials
which the accused may produce at the stage of
Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly
decided.”
12. Sanghi Brothers
The Hon’ble Apex Court held in
(Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Sanjay Choudhary & Ors. (2008) 10
SCC 681:
11. Sections 227, 239 and 245 deal with
discharge from criminal charge. In State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699 :
1977 SCC (Cri) 404] it was noted that at the stage
of framing the charge the court has to apply its
mind to the question whether or not there is any
ground for presuming the commission of offence
by the accused. (underlined [Ed. : Herein
italicised.] for emphasis) The court has to see
while considering the question of framing the
charge as to whether the material brought on
record could reasonably connect the accused with
the trial. Nothing more is required to be inquired
into. (See Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip
Nathumal Chordia [(1989) 1 SCC 715 : 1989 SCC
(Cri) 285] and State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid [(1995)
1 SCC 684 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 266] .)
13. Rukmini Narvekar
The Hon’ble Apex Court also held in
vrs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors. A.I.R.2009 SC 1013:
38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the
6
accused to produce any evidence in support of the
submissions made on his behalf at the stage of
framing of charge and only such materials as are
indicated in Section 227 CrPC can be taken into
consideration by the learned Magistrate at that
stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom
under Section 482 CrPC the court is free to
consider material that may be produced on behalf
of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the
charge as framed could be maintained. This, in
my view, appears to be the intention of the
legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the
way in which they have been worded and as
explained in Debendra Nath Padhi case [(2005) 1
SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] by the larger Bench
therein to which the very same question had been
referred.
14. Central Bureau of
The Hon’ble Apex Court held in
Investigation vrs. Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff & Ors
(2010) 3 SCC Cr. 315:
The appreciation of evidence, at the stage of
“
discharge is impermissible what is required is to
be seen is whether there are sufficient grounds to
proceed against accused.”
15. In the F.I.R. itself the allegations are made by the
informant that dispute arose on use of the common lavatory
between the informant and the accused since the accused had
obstructed to the informant to pass by the side of him just to
use the lavatory and on the very issue the accused Vijay
Prakash Sinha had assaulted him. When his wife and son both
came to rescue him, the accused Vijay Prakash Sinha and his
son Harsh Vijay both had assaulted to the son and wife of the
informant also whereby all the three sustained injury. These
averments made in the F.I.R. are also supported with the
statement of the informant Jay Prakash Sinha and statement
7
of Subham Prakash, son of the informant and Indira Sinha wife
of the informant. All the three are the injured witnesses and
their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are also
corroborated with the injury report of all the three which is
shown in para 24 of the case diary.
16. In view of para 24 of the case diary, the injured Jay
Prakash Sinha had sustained four injuries, third was
brownish coloured abrasion over lateral surface of upper part
of leg left and fourth was complain of backache. Likewise
Subham Prakash had also sustained three injuries which are
vertical surface
(1) A Brownish Bruise ½” x ½” over left side of
of roof of neck (2) ¼” abrasion over right knee (Brownish) and
(3) ½” abrasion over left knee (Brownish). Indira Sinha had also
sustained three injuries which are (1) complain of headache,
bodyache (2) complain of pain back of neck (3) complain of
diminished version regarding complain No. (1) & (2) No obvious
external injury. For complain No. (3) Eye surgeon’s opinion is
needed. The injury of all the three injured witnesses have been
opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt
substance.
17. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the ingredients of the offence under Sections 341 and 323 are
not attracted. Herein it would be relevant to give certain
statutory provisions of I.P.C.
319. Hurt.-whoever causes bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.-
Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section
8
334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend
to one thousand rupees, or with both.
339. Wrongful restraint.- Whoever voluntarily
obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from
proceeding in any direction in which that person has a
right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that
person.
18. From the very perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R.
and the evidence collected by the I.O. the ingredients of Section
339 are attracted because the informant was voluntarily
obstructed by the accused persons to proceed to use the
lavatory to which he has right to use. As such the wrongful
restraint was caused to the informant.
19. So far as the offence under Section 323 is concerned, all
the three injured had sustained injuries which was simple in
nature caused by hard and blunt object. So far as the act of
the petitioner in causing the simple hurt is concerned, same is
found voluntarily as when the informant was being assaulted,
his wife and son came to rescue both were also assaulted by
the petitioner Vijay Prakash Sinha and his son Harsh Vijay as
well. As such, the contention of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that there was no criminal intent to cause the simple
hurt is not found sustainable.
20. In view of the submissions made and the material on
record, the impugned order passed by the learned court-below
by which the discharge application of the petitioner for the
offence under Sections 323 & 341 of I.P.C. has been rejected
9
bears no infirmity and needs no interference. Accordingly, this
Cr. Revision deserves to be dismissed.
21. This Cr. Revision is hereby dismissed. The impugned
order passed by the learned court-below is affirmed.
22. It is made clear that any observation made herein shall
not affect the merits of the case.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
P.K.S./A.F.R.