Chattisgarh High Court
Neeraj Jagatramka vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:2933
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2236 of 2024
Neeraj Jagatramka S/o Late Brij Bhushanjagatramka Aged About 45 Years R/o
Vrindavan Colony, House No. 57, Bhagwanpur, Raugarh, District Raigarh ( Cg)
Pin Code-496001
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station-In-Charge, Police Station-
Anusuchit Jaati Kalyan (Ajk), (Raigarh Kotwali), Raigarh, Distgrict-Raigarh (Cg)
Pin Code-496001
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order on Board
16/01/2025
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth, ‘SC/ST
Act, 1989’) has been preferred by the appellant / accused challenging the order
dated 17.10.2024 (Annexure A-1) framing charges against him under Sections
294, 506 Part II, 427, 353 & 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
3(1)(s), 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, 1989.
2
3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, is that on 30.4.2019 at about 11.12 O’clock
complainant – Bhagat Ram Sidar, who is Constable, belongs to Tribal
community, was performing his duty at Vrindawan Colony, Raigarh. At the time
of incident, appellant/accused had kept standby his scooty at the centre of the
road, therefore, complainant asked him to remove his scooty, then appellant
abused him in filthy language in the name of his caste, torn his official dress
and also broken his name plate . Based on above facts, present FIR bearing
Crime No. 261 of 2020 has been registered at police Station Raigarh Kotwali,
District Raigarh for commission of offence punishable under Sections 186, 353
& 294 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet
against the appellant /accused for offence under Sections 186, 353 & 294 of
the IPC and Section 3 (i) (r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 before the Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, 1989, which is registered as Special Criminal Case (Atrocity
Act) No. 32/2023.
4. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties on charges, learned
trial Court vide impugned order dated 17.10.2024 held that prima facie case for
commission of offence under Sections 294, 506 Part II, 427, 353 & 332 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
Act, 1989 is made out against the accused/appellant, as such, Special Judge
framed charges against the appellant for the aforesaid offences.
5. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, instant criminal appeal has
been preferred by the appellant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that
in instant case, FIR has been lodged in City Kotwali, Raigarh on 16.03.2020
whereas date of incident was said to be 30.4.2019, thus, the FIR has been
lodged after an inordinate delay of about 11 months. It is further contended
that initially FIR was not registered under the SC/ST Act, 1989, rather it was
3
added while filing charge-sheet. It is further contended that as per case of the
prosecution, complainant had made written complaint on 30.04.2019 itself, but
no rojnamcha sanha of that day has been filed by the prosecution alongwith
the charge-sheet. It is next contended that, three statements of complainant
have been filed alongwith the charge-sheet, which shows that the facts have
been subsequently improvised again & again and there are various
contradictions in the written statement and the statement of the complainant
recorded by the police. He further submits that lodging FIR after more than 11
months of the incident and status of complainant, who is police constable, itself
shows that appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and no
ingredients has been made out from the charge-sheet for framing charge, as
has been framed by learned Special Judge and, therefore, order framing
charge dated 17.10.2024 may be set aside and the appellant may be
discharged from the alleged offences.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that though FIR was
lodged after about 11 months of the incident, but complainant had made written
report to the Station House Officer, City Kotwali, Raigarh on the date of incident
itself i.e. on 30.04.2019, which was received at the said police station on
01.05.2019. He further submits that on 01.05.2019, statement of complainant –
Bhagat Ram Sidar was also recorded, subsequently, again his two statements
have been recorded on 18.03.2020 and 29.06.2020, respectively. But facts
narrated by him about the incident clearly demonstrate all the necessary
ingredients for framing charges against the appellant, which have been framed
by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Raigarh, as such, the appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the certified
copy of charge-sheet filed by the appellant alongwith case diary.
4
9. Complainant, who is said to be Constable and belongs to tribal
community, has made written complaint dated 30.04.2019 i.e. on the date of
incident itself, which was, as per endorsement, was received on 1.5.2019, at
Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh. Though, the prosecution has filed three
statements of complainant recorded on various dates, but said written
complaint and his statements prima facie demonstrate the fact that on the date
of incident, when complainant, who is performing his official duty on the road,
asked the appellant / accused to remove his scooty from the road, then the
appellant abused him in filthy language by the name of his caste, torn his
official dress and broken his name plate also. The appellant/accused has also
manhandled him and also assaulted him, therefore,pocket of dress of
complainant was torn, buttons were broken and thread of name plate was also
broken.
10. It is well settled principle of law that while framing charge, only fact which
is to be seen, is whether from the charge-sheet and material filed by the police,
prima facie case is made out or not. Meticulous scrutiny of facts available on the
record are not required.
11. In the case of State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and others 1, their Lordships
of the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 7 that legal position is well settled
that at the stage of framing of charge the trial Court is not to examine and
assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor it is for
the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence
alleged against the accused persons. At this stage of charge the court is to
examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of
commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused
persons.
1 (2000) 8 SCC 239
5
12. In the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
Bengaluru2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that while deciding a
discharge petition, only materials brought on record by prosecution (both in form of
oral statements and documents) have to be considered. Accused is entitled to
discharge if evidence (i.e. statements recorded by police or documents concerned),
which prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of accused, even if fully
accepted, before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence
evidence, cannot show that accused committed the offence. It is also held that
though it is open to accused to explain away the materials giving rise to grave
suspicion, but his submissions must be confined only to materials produced by the
prosecution. Defence of accused cannot be looked into at the stage of discharge. It
is also held that Court must, without making a roving inquiry into the pros and cons,
consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the materials before it, any basic
infirmities appearing in the case, etc. Probative value of material on record cannot
be gone into. Materials brought on record by prosecution has to be accepted as
true, existence of some material to entertain strong suspicion is essential to draw
up a charge and refuse to discharge accused.
13. In the matter of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another 3, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has 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 charge. Once the facts and2 (2020) 2 SCC 768
3 (2012) 9 SCC 460
6ingredients of the Section exists, then the Court would be
right in presuming that there is good to proceed against the
accused and framed 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 qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It
may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a find
distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of
the Code. Section 227 is expression of a definite opinion and
judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to
say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should
form 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. There is a find
distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of
the Code. Section 227 is expression of a definite opinion and
judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to
say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should
form 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.
18. 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.”
14. In aforesaid case i.e. Amit Kapoor (Supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court
has held that quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution
and where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to
permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is
not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the
7
documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. Therefore, alleged
contradictions, irregularities or improbabilities with regard to proceedings made by
investigating agency cannot be taken into consideration at this stage.
15. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court in the afore-cited cases, it is found that from the perusal of charge-sheet,
particularly, considering the written complaint and statements of the complainant recorded
by the police, prima facie case of framing charges for the aforesaid offences is made out.
Whether complainant has improvised his version again & again and which of the
statement is true and what would be its pros and cons can be scrutinized after recording
evidence of the prosecution, it cannot be said at this stage that this statement is wrong
and that statement is right.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the
order impugned framing charge passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Raigarh
framing charges against the appellant. Hence, the same is upheld and the appeal is
dismissed.
17. It is made clear that observations made by this Court is only in respect of order
framing charge, nothing has been observed on merits of the case, therefore, learned
Special Judge while passing judgment on merit, it be passed without being influenced by
any of the observations made by this Court in this order.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Amit/-
AMIT Digitally signed
by AMIT KUMAR
KUMAR DUBEY
Date: 2025.01.23
DUBEY 12:15:43 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link