Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurav Sisodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5153
1 CRR-1294-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1294 of 2023
GAURAV SISODIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Virendra Singh Pal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Harish Sharma - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1296 of 2023
RAJVEER SINGH SISODIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Virendra Singh Pal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Harish Sharma - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Both these criminal revisions are related with same crime and same
criminal case, therefore, both the criminal revisions are being decided
analogously.
2. Both criminal revisions under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of
Cr.P.C. have been filed against the impugned order dated 23.1.2023 passed
by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T.No.472/2022, whereby
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Mar-25
1:22:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5153
2 CRR-1294-2023
charges under Section 368, 506 Part-II of IPC have been framed against the
applicants.
3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present revisions, in short,
are that complainant Ramhet Parihar lodged a missing person report at Police
Station Kampoo, District Gwalior that his daughter/prosecutrix is missing
from home. During investigation, it has been gathered that on the pretext of
marriage, co-accused Saurabh Sisodiya forcefully abducted the minor
prosecutrix, took her at Agra, Gwalior, Jaipur and other different places and
committed rape upon her repeatedly. The allegation leveled against the
applicants are that they have helped the main accused Saurabh Sisodiya for
abduction of the prosecutrix and also threatened her for life. Accordingly,
offence has been registered.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed
before the trial Court and later on matter has been committed to the Sessions
Court. At the time of framing of charges, learned counsel for the applicants
argued before the Trial Court that no offence has been made out against both
the applicants and they should be discharged from the charges but after
hearing both the parties, the Trial Court framed the aforesaid charges against
the applicants. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, both the applicants
have preferred these criminal revisions.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that there is no
sufficient and prima facie evidence available on record to frame the aforesaid
charges against the applicants. The Trial Court has committed mistake by
framing the aforesaid charges, therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Mar-25
1:22:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5153
3 CRR-1294-2023
is absolutely bad in the eye of law and contrary to the material available on
record. Applicants did not commit any offence. Prosecutrix is a major lady.
She was love affair with co-accused Saurabh and left Gwalior on her own
will. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order for framing the aforesaid
charges be set aside and both the applicants be discharged from all the
charges.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that on the basis of the
prima facie evidence available on record, trial Court has rightly framed the
aforesaid charges, therefore, no interference is required in the instant matter.
7. Learned counsel for both the parties are heard at length and perused
the entire record.
8. If the facts of the present case are considered, then it is clear that
although both the applicants were not named in the FIR but the prosecutrix
in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. categorically mentioned that both the applicants threatened
her and her family members that if she disclose anything about the incident
regarding Saurabh, then they will kill her entire family. The same fact was
corroborated by other witnesses in their statements under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C.
9. Prima facie for the purpose of framing of charge, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is sufficient material available on record. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Soma Chakravarty Vs. State (Th. CBI)
reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3683 has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Mar-25
1:22:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5153
4 CRR-1294-2023
“20. It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as
mentioned in the above decisions, is that if on the basis of material
on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might
have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At
the time of framing of the 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. Before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial
mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that
the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether,
in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in
the trial.”
10. The Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala &
Anr., reported in 2010 Cri.L.J. 1427 has held as under:-
“10. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial
Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this
stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal. Further, the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused” clearly show that the judge is not a mere Post
Office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has
to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to
determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the
prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court
to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and
balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the
function of the Court, after the trial starts. At the stage of Section
227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out
whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take
within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or
the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose
that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as
to frame a charge against him.”
11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh
reported in AIR 1977 SC 2018 has held as under:-
“…….. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains
in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his
guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is
a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offenceSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Mar-25
1:22:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:51535 CRR-1294-2023
then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of
the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the, initial stage is
not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in
France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the
contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima
facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. if the
evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the
guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged
in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any,
cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there
will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial……”
This Court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion may not
take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient
for the satisfaction of the Trial Judge in order to frame a charge
against the accused.”
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla
Kumar Samal reported in AIR 1979 SC 366 has held as under:-
“(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been
made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a
rule of universal application. By and large however if two views
are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not
grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his
right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the
Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and
experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-
piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that
the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of
the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”
13. It is well settled principle of law that at the time of framing of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Mar-25
1:22:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5153
6 CRR-1294-2023
charges, meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record is not
required and even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges.
14. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this
Court is of the considered opinion that no infirmity, irregularity or illegality
is found in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.
Accordingly both the revisions are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed
at this stage.
15. It is made clear that nothing observed hereinabove shall prejudice
the case of the applicants/accused at the trial.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Mar-25
1:22:46 PM